What we choose to emphasize in this complex history will determine our lives. If we see only the worst, it destroys our capacity to do something. If we remember those times and places—and there are so many—where people have behaved magnificently, this gives us the energy to act, and at least the possibility of sending this spinning top of a world in a different direction.
And if we do act, in however small a way, we don’t have to wait for some grand utopian future.
The future is an infinite succession of presents, and to live now as we think human beings should live, in defiance of all that is bad around us, is itself a marvelous victory.” ~ Howard Zinn, from book You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train
As someone who worked in microwave systems engineering for a couple of decades, I am highly skeptical about schemes involving collecting solar energy in space then beaming it back to earth via microwave radiation, followed by conversion to electricity on earth. Please permit me to elaborate. First, there is the cost on placing the huge solar arrays, associated attitude control systems, DC to RF converters, and antennas into orbit. Next is the matter of efficiency. While it is true that outside the atmosphere the solar irradiance is abou twice that on the ground, typical RF devices are much less than 50% efficient, leading to more than a 75% loss from those devices alone. Then there are the antennas, which also introduce losses, and the potential added problem of unacceptably dangerous RF field levels if sufficient sidelobe suppression is not achieved. The there is the problem of microwave attenuation by the atmosphere. The latter can be ameliorated by choosing a sufficiently low frequency, but then both the space- and earth- located antennas become commensurately larger.
It is not a matter of possibility but rather of practicability. Ask yourself, who makes money on this? How does it contribute to a distributed energy infrastructure? How much more renewable energy would be produced bif the money was spent on earth- bound solar and wind?
Bill, ISO New England's finding that distributed (i.e. rooftop) solar increases reliability, even in winter, rather than decreasing it, is very significant. Apparently this was not "intuitive" to ISO officials, before the study.
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory released a document (https://emp.lbl.gov/queues) in April showing that a huge number of renewable energy projects are currently in queues across the U.S., proposed by companies ready to build them. The queues are those of the grid operators (a.k.a., ISOs or RTOs), who must conduct studies before approving new generation projects, under FERC requirements. “Over 10,000 projects representing 1,350 gigawatts (GW) of generator capacity and 680 GW of storage actively seeking interconnection Most (~1260 GW) proposed generation is zero-carbon.” Since the total existing U.S. generation capacity is roughly a thousand GW, the proposed projects might go a long way toward conversion to renewable power.
The ISOs and RTOs are directly regulated by FERC. Is there any way we can apply pressure to FERC to in turn lean on other ISOs ( in addition to New England ISO, which apparently has 'seen the light') to move some of these resources off the sidings?
Scale up rail and mass transit. Put back the rail infrastructure this country once had. How many millions of barrels of oil do we burn PER DAY on this planet??? Let's stop the insanity of taking three to five thousand pounds of metal and plastic with us every time we have to go buy a loaf of bread. Let's also put in REAL bike lanes everywhere so we can bike long distances without getting killed on the side of the road. The fossil fuel industry is holding us hostage to the automobile and they stole out future. Let's take our future back!
Bill, since Spring 2012 when I retired and ventured some 10,000 miles to “a string of pearls” of climate actions over 65 days around the US—including my 2nd participation at the 3rd Annual Slow Living Summit in Brattleboro where I helped Becky pull off your keynote—my motto has been GO SLOW QUICKLY...
Well here we are, 11 years hence and having driven a distance greater than the moon is from Eaarth (285,800 in my Honda hybrid) and that motto applies more than ever in a new sense:
GO SLOW QUICKLY
“... the White House took its first tentative steps this week towards embracing the possibility of tossing huge amounts of sulfur into the air to block incoming sunlight, despite the incredible risks that would entail.”
We’ve got to do the necessary research very carefully, professionally, expertly, inclusively, transparently and with permission from the global network of indigenous from the Arctic to the tropics and the southernmost tips of Africa, Australia and South America ... AND URGENTLY to make sure we don’t blow it.
Knowing what I know about the behind-the-scenes multiple fortnightly GoogleGroup deliberations by dozens of scientists and engineers who have a common goal of saving humanity but differ on the Earth Science, we are like that iconic image of a kitten hanging on to the frayed end of a rope by a single claw.
We’ve got to assess options of nature-based albedo restoration and direct cooling from Ocean Pasture Restoration (OPR) to Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB) ... yes ... as well as regional Arctic tropospheric Solar Radiation Management (SRM) and so-called “taboo” technologies like Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI).
The risk of deploying any means of “geoengineering” must be carefully assessed vis-a-vis the risk of doing nothing, with an eye on the next seven generations.
Not the least of my concerns about stratospheric seeding is its inherent possibility for weaponization. Then there's the increased acidification of the oceans, acid rain over land. As a physicist I deplore the misapplication of technology to social problems, ESPECIALLY given that we already have the technology to address climate change, but lack the resolve to change our behavior and use it.
As a physicist, you know the range of geoengineering spans a plethora of nature-based to technological measuresl, e.g., CDR, DAC, IOF, OPR, OAE, TRM, AE, SRM, and last but not lease SAI. So much to do, so little time. Urgently, carefully, scientifically, ethically, lovingly … for life.
Let's not forget non-human animals. How many have perished and will perish in Canada's wildfires? Tens of thousands of dead fish land on beaches because the ocean's temperature is too hot and they don't get enough oxygen. And of course the elephant in the room: Animal agriculture, which contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions. I hope in this forum I won't meet ridicule and derision when I promote a plant-based diet as an essential component of any plan to combat the climate emergency.
Ground stop is an aviation rule that could immediately reduce airplane fossil fuel CO2 emissions to 1/4 of present levels. Suppose we have a worldwide coordinated ground stop plan where airplane operation is allowed for one week and airplanes are parked and subject to ground stop for 3 weeks.
Two months ago I blogged an empirical science project: https://www.lowco2america.com/2023/01/reducing-global-co2-by-limiting-air.html. On July 4th I was walking the dogs in my northern California community of El Granada and I puzzled why was the sky so quiet? The President had flown into Moffett Field and general aviation had been given a ground stop for security. Bingo Bingo Jackpot. Ground stop is a powerful tool to cause a safe, sane, plausible and socially acceptable reduction in local CO2 emissions. Bill, I nominate you to talk to President Biden about trying out a 1:3 ground stop program. For how long? Until we can determine a reduction ratio.
In spite of the heat it generates, the sun does, naturally, and can also cost-effectively combat Climate Change, by fueling CO 2 capture, as we use it in our patented Combined Remediation and Bio-Product Production (CRBBP) Process, where one plants then multi-tasks very fast and large-growing Bio-Crops, to cost-effectively capture relatively large amounts of atmospheric CO 2, remediate air, soil and water, and then to make a variety of Bio-Products, in which the captured Carbon can be sequestered.
And, the CRBBP Process' multi-tasking feature can make the effective cost of all of its outcomes, including CO 2 capture, substantially lower than if the Bio-Crops were grown for a single purpose.
So, for example, Biomass Sorghum, our preferred Bio-Crop, which would capture CO 2 at an extraordinarily low cost of approximately $35/ton, as a stand-alone activity, will have its CO 2 capture cost made significantly lower, when it is grown within our CRBBP Process' multi-tasking umbrella.
Therefore, thanks to the sun's power, our CRBBP Process’ CO 2 capture cost may be among the least expensive in the world!!!
Perhaps you could share information concerning the sequestration duation for the bio-products, as well as what these products consist of. That would go a long way toward dispelling skepticism.
Climate modification i.e. the spraying of our skies in order to modify the weather has been going on for decades. There's a comprehensive documentary on the subject called "The Dimming", you can watch it at Geoengineeringwatch.org.
We know that getting to net 0 emissions alone will not bring the earth back to balance in time to save us, It is widely accepted by the IPCC and the Scientific community that we need to actively pull carbon out of the atmosphere as quickly as possible order to get below 350 ppm. Which means scaling up all technologies including carbon capture, to pull carbon out of the atmosphere. Since we are already above 350 ppm, you would think that it's common sense that we should all be on board with scaling up all technologies as quick as possible. It should be obvious that given our dire situation, we can't afford to leave any measure that can help on the table. It boggles my mind that many in the environmental movement don't want to wrap their heads around this fact.
Perfect reminder to all: "that we have to solve this problem everywhere, not just the U.S." Connect with the Top Solar Company in India for installing on-site and off-site solutions.
"Using better farming techniques to store 1% more carbon in about half of the world’s agricultural soils would be enough to absorb about 31 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide a year, according to new data. That amount is not far off the 32 gigatonnes gap between current planned emissions reduction globally per year and the amount of carbon that must be cut by 2030 to stay within 1.5C."
"'Outside the farming sector, people do not understand how important soils are to the climate,' said McGlade. 'Changing farming could make soils carbon negative, making them absorb carbon, and reducing the cost of farming.'"
something to think about while we still can think. mans has and will keep expanding its population until we no longer have anything left. . the sun will continue to enlarge itself until this planet no longer exists. this planet land masses will continue to move apart regardless of the weather patterns. There is a solution to the problem we have created for ourselves. we can do little to stop plate tectonics or solar flares or the warmer climate what we can do is use everything we take from this planet more wisely. Build better homes better cities better water use better oil use better energy systems. the ones we have today are working against themselves totally. I have a solution if anybody is interested just answer to this comment.
Barbara & Howard Zinn thank you Bill!
What we choose to emphasize in this complex history will determine our lives. If we see only the worst, it destroys our capacity to do something. If we remember those times and places—and there are so many—where people have behaved magnificently, this gives us the energy to act, and at least the possibility of sending this spinning top of a world in a different direction.
And if we do act, in however small a way, we don’t have to wait for some grand utopian future.
The future is an infinite succession of presents, and to live now as we think human beings should live, in defiance of all that is bad around us, is itself a marvelous victory.” ~ Howard Zinn, from book You Can't Be Neutral on a Moving Train
thank you for that!
"...that means we have an 80% chance to sue the climate deniers into submission!"...
So, your proposal for changing someone's mind is to sue them in a court of LAW???
I don't know if that idea is hilarious or tragic.
As someone who worked in microwave systems engineering for a couple of decades, I am highly skeptical about schemes involving collecting solar energy in space then beaming it back to earth via microwave radiation, followed by conversion to electricity on earth. Please permit me to elaborate. First, there is the cost on placing the huge solar arrays, associated attitude control systems, DC to RF converters, and antennas into orbit. Next is the matter of efficiency. While it is true that outside the atmosphere the solar irradiance is abou twice that on the ground, typical RF devices are much less than 50% efficient, leading to more than a 75% loss from those devices alone. Then there are the antennas, which also introduce losses, and the potential added problem of unacceptably dangerous RF field levels if sufficient sidelobe suppression is not achieved. The there is the problem of microwave attenuation by the atmosphere. The latter can be ameliorated by choosing a sufficiently low frequency, but then both the space- and earth- located antennas become commensurately larger.
It is not a matter of possibility but rather of practicability. Ask yourself, who makes money on this? How does it contribute to a distributed energy infrastructure? How much more renewable energy would be produced bif the money was spent on earth- bound solar and wind?
Bill, ISO New England's finding that distributed (i.e. rooftop) solar increases reliability, even in winter, rather than decreasing it, is very significant. Apparently this was not "intuitive" to ISO officials, before the study.
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory released a document (https://emp.lbl.gov/queues) in April showing that a huge number of renewable energy projects are currently in queues across the U.S., proposed by companies ready to build them. The queues are those of the grid operators (a.k.a., ISOs or RTOs), who must conduct studies before approving new generation projects, under FERC requirements. “Over 10,000 projects representing 1,350 gigawatts (GW) of generator capacity and 680 GW of storage actively seeking interconnection Most (~1260 GW) proposed generation is zero-carbon.” Since the total existing U.S. generation capacity is roughly a thousand GW, the proposed projects might go a long way toward conversion to renewable power.
The ISOs and RTOs are directly regulated by FERC. Is there any way we can apply pressure to FERC to in turn lean on other ISOs ( in addition to New England ISO, which apparently has 'seen the light') to move some of these resources off the sidings?
Tom Kraemer
tkraemer2@frontier.com
Scale up rail and mass transit. Put back the rail infrastructure this country once had. How many millions of barrels of oil do we burn PER DAY on this planet??? Let's stop the insanity of taking three to five thousand pounds of metal and plastic with us every time we have to go buy a loaf of bread. Let's also put in REAL bike lanes everywhere so we can bike long distances without getting killed on the side of the road. The fossil fuel industry is holding us hostage to the automobile and they stole out future. Let's take our future back!
Electrify! Fight the sun!
But never, never ever, under any circumstances, change our lifestyle.
Good plan.
Bill, since Spring 2012 when I retired and ventured some 10,000 miles to “a string of pearls” of climate actions over 65 days around the US—including my 2nd participation at the 3rd Annual Slow Living Summit in Brattleboro where I helped Becky pull off your keynote—my motto has been GO SLOW QUICKLY...
Well here we are, 11 years hence and having driven a distance greater than the moon is from Eaarth (285,800 in my Honda hybrid) and that motto applies more than ever in a new sense:
GO SLOW QUICKLY
“... the White House took its first tentative steps this week towards embracing the possibility of tossing huge amounts of sulfur into the air to block incoming sunlight, despite the incredible risks that would entail.”
We’ve got to do the necessary research very carefully, professionally, expertly, inclusively, transparently and with permission from the global network of indigenous from the Arctic to the tropics and the southernmost tips of Africa, Australia and South America ... AND URGENTLY to make sure we don’t blow it.
Knowing what I know about the behind-the-scenes multiple fortnightly GoogleGroup deliberations by dozens of scientists and engineers who have a common goal of saving humanity but differ on the Earth Science, we are like that iconic image of a kitten hanging on to the frayed end of a rope by a single claw.
We’ve got to assess options of nature-based albedo restoration and direct cooling from Ocean Pasture Restoration (OPR) to Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB) ... yes ... as well as regional Arctic tropospheric Solar Radiation Management (SRM) and so-called “taboo” technologies like Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI).
The risk of deploying any means of “geoengineering” must be carefully assessed vis-a-vis the risk of doing nothing, with an eye on the next seven generations.
Not the least of my concerns about stratospheric seeding is its inherent possibility for weaponization. Then there's the increased acidification of the oceans, acid rain over land. As a physicist I deplore the misapplication of technology to social problems, ESPECIALLY given that we already have the technology to address climate change, but lack the resolve to change our behavior and use it.
As a physicist, you know the range of geoengineering spans a plethora of nature-based to technological measuresl, e.g., CDR, DAC, IOF, OPR, OAE, TRM, AE, SRM, and last but not lease SAI. So much to do, so little time. Urgently, carefully, scientifically, ethically, lovingly … for life.
Let's not forget non-human animals. How many have perished and will perish in Canada's wildfires? Tens of thousands of dead fish land on beaches because the ocean's temperature is too hot and they don't get enough oxygen. And of course the elephant in the room: Animal agriculture, which contributes significantly to greenhouse gas emissions. I hope in this forum I won't meet ridicule and derision when I promote a plant-based diet as an essential component of any plan to combat the climate emergency.
Ground stop is an aviation rule that could immediately reduce airplane fossil fuel CO2 emissions to 1/4 of present levels. Suppose we have a worldwide coordinated ground stop plan where airplane operation is allowed for one week and airplanes are parked and subject to ground stop for 3 weeks.
Two months ago I blogged an empirical science project: https://www.lowco2america.com/2023/01/reducing-global-co2-by-limiting-air.html. On July 4th I was walking the dogs in my northern California community of El Granada and I puzzled why was the sky so quiet? The President had flown into Moffett Field and general aviation had been given a ground stop for security. Bingo Bingo Jackpot. Ground stop is a powerful tool to cause a safe, sane, plausible and socially acceptable reduction in local CO2 emissions. Bill, I nominate you to talk to President Biden about trying out a 1:3 ground stop program. For how long? Until we can determine a reduction ratio.
Bill:
In spite of the heat it generates, the sun does, naturally, and can also cost-effectively combat Climate Change, by fueling CO 2 capture, as we use it in our patented Combined Remediation and Bio-Product Production (CRBBP) Process, where one plants then multi-tasks very fast and large-growing Bio-Crops, to cost-effectively capture relatively large amounts of atmospheric CO 2, remediate air, soil and water, and then to make a variety of Bio-Products, in which the captured Carbon can be sequestered.
And, the CRBBP Process' multi-tasking feature can make the effective cost of all of its outcomes, including CO 2 capture, substantially lower than if the Bio-Crops were grown for a single purpose.
So, for example, Biomass Sorghum, our preferred Bio-Crop, which would capture CO 2 at an extraordinarily low cost of approximately $35/ton, as a stand-alone activity, will have its CO 2 capture cost made significantly lower, when it is grown within our CRBBP Process' multi-tasking umbrella.
Therefore, thanks to the sun's power, our CRBBP Process’ CO 2 capture cost may be among the least expensive in the world!!!
josephjjames@bellsouth.net
Perhaps you could share information concerning the sequestration duation for the bio-products, as well as what these products consist of. That would go a long way toward dispelling skepticism.
Stop spouting nonsense, Bill.
Climate modification i.e. the spraying of our skies in order to modify the weather has been going on for decades. There's a comprehensive documentary on the subject called "The Dimming", you can watch it at Geoengineeringwatch.org.
We know that getting to net 0 emissions alone will not bring the earth back to balance in time to save us, It is widely accepted by the IPCC and the Scientific community that we need to actively pull carbon out of the atmosphere as quickly as possible order to get below 350 ppm. Which means scaling up all technologies including carbon capture, to pull carbon out of the atmosphere. Since we are already above 350 ppm, you would think that it's common sense that we should all be on board with scaling up all technologies as quick as possible. It should be obvious that given our dire situation, we can't afford to leave any measure that can help on the table. It boggles my mind that many in the environmental movement don't want to wrap their heads around this fact.
Perfect reminder to all: "that we have to solve this problem everywhere, not just the U.S." Connect with the Top Solar Company in India for installing on-site and off-site solutions.
Wow.
https://climaterealism.com/2023/07/earth-experiencing-hottest-day-ever-is-a-deliberate-lie/
"Using better farming techniques to store 1% more carbon in about half of the world’s agricultural soils would be enough to absorb about 31 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide a year, according to new data. That amount is not far off the 32 gigatonnes gap between current planned emissions reduction globally per year and the amount of carbon that must be cut by 2030 to stay within 1.5C."
"'Outside the farming sector, people do not understand how important soils are to the climate,' said McGlade. 'Changing farming could make soils carbon negative, making them absorb carbon, and reducing the cost of farming.'"
~ Fiona Harvey
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/04/improving-farming-soil-carbon-store-global-heating-target
something to think about while we still can think. mans has and will keep expanding its population until we no longer have anything left. . the sun will continue to enlarge itself until this planet no longer exists. this planet land masses will continue to move apart regardless of the weather patterns. There is a solution to the problem we have created for ourselves. we can do little to stop plate tectonics or solar flares or the warmer climate what we can do is use everything we take from this planet more wisely. Build better homes better cities better water use better oil use better energy systems. the ones we have today are working against themselves totally. I have a solution if anybody is interested just answer to this comment.