Easy GeoEngineering and Energy Solutions?

[SaggyBalls]

nibbler's 'Weather Modification...' Thread and subsequent discussion has prompted me to start a new thread to be a resource and discussion about smart, simple fixes that could save us from all of this 'impending doom' that keeps getting pushed on us from the media and overzealous religious environmentalists and those they've dazzled.

...let's keep this constructive - maybe link to a blog post (as provided at jambands.ca or elsewhere) with any potential 'conspiracies' if you feel they tie in?

nibbler's Weather modification thread

That great WSJ Article

So...I'll start off by addressing a necessary point that some of these solutions would CHANGE the way we experience life on this planet, even if it's only temporary. Blocking the sun to stop it from heating in the first place severly limits agriculture and our experience of the sun (Vitamin D is amazing as is solar power) and how weather would react to our interference (higher cloud tops? Bigger tropical storms? Severe weather patterns?).

What about this guy?

"Perhaps the best we can do for now is simply say even discussing geoengineering is totally off the table until we get climate change policy and carbon pricing in place." A. Steffen (link)

Pumping man made clouds or seeding clouds with chemicals to either grow or cull them seems like a great concept at first, but with growing skin cancer rates and epidemics of influenzas happening around the globe: man made or not, people are still getting sick.

So what other solutions are out there that would help us either reverse the effects we've had on the planet?

What would move us away from the outdated concept of fuels...or change our politico-economic concept of fuel so that we will stop making greedy decisions that undermine the well being of man and the planet?

How about Bunny Fuels!

I guess it's not just the humans in Stockholm that are facing hard times.

Anybody care to weigh in on this:

"Geo-engineering is unnecessary because permaculture can be used to solve the same problems with additional net benefits and zero risk."

-greensolutions

Personally, I'm more on the side of permaculture and back-to-basics solutions that everyone can do and that municipalities and cities can introduce into shared land and parks than big technological breakthroughs.

Coming from that (as well as past catastrophe) Would a solution to this be to incite Precautionary, Proactivity, or Reversability (link)?

Artificial Trees that soak up carbon?

Then - of course - there's the Nuclear solution:

Safer Nuclear Fuels and reprocessing

Thorium, as well as uranium and plutonium, can be used as fuel in a nuclear reactor. A thorium fuel cycle offers several potential advantages over a uranium fuel cycle, including greater abundance on Earth, superior physical and nuclear properties of fuel, enhanced proliferation resistance, and reduced nuclear waste production.

Safer, non-weaponizable, Thorium.

Solves nuclear Waste Problem!

So spent uranium and plutonium can be reprocessed with thorium to turn back into uranium again and again, or a mostly-thorium compound can be processed with a significantly shorter half-life and much less actual waste.

With Canadian Nuclear reactors still being the best in the world, this would present a significantly beneficial solution for Canadian Industry and the subsequent boom in electrically-powered vehicles and geoengineering solutions around the world.

While I'm into low-impact, small scale, and back yard development, I also have a love-hate relationship with Nuclear Energy. So much potential and until now (IMO) we've squandered it.

What solutions, ideas, talking points, or questions do you have about any of these or other solutions (and potential hurdles) on the political, technological, or economic landscapes?

[Esau.]

Personally, I find it hard to have constructive discussions when conspiracy theories are brought into it.

"Easy solutions", "Simple fixes"? I don't think there are any.

There are however many simple and feasible beginnings to making things better everyone could take on without having all that big of impact on our lifestyles or having to bust our wallets trying to achieve. Working to reduce our own carbon footprint overall is the top most, in my opinion.

[SaggyBalls]

Personally, I find it hard to have constructive discussions when conspiracy theories are brought into it.

I figured that instead of saying 'please keep them out' I'd suggest that they be minimized.

"Easy solutions", "Simple fixes"? I don't think there are any.

There are however many simple and feasible beginnings to making things better everyone could take on without having all that big of impact on our lifestyles or having to bust our wallets trying to achieve.

Those are more than a welcome sight.

Working to reduce our own carbon footprint overall is the top most, in my opinion.

That's a solid opinion.

I look forward to a time where people don't feel they need to worry about a 'carbon footprint'.

While environmental stewardship is in part everybody's responsibility, this increasing emphasis on doing the 'right thing' could get out of hand.

Hopefully we won't get too carried away in the process.

[Esau.]

I look forward to many things, but I'm realistic and understand it all starts with single steps.

While environmental stewardship is in part everybody's responsibility, this increasing emphasis on doing the 'right thing' could get out of hand.

It's too late, it already has. Refer to your original post.

[nibbler]

When it comes to energy, conservation is so important!

I still can't believe how much better my house traps the heat after I spent a measly $150 on blown-in insulation for the attic this past summer.

I'm in the process of replacing all light bulbs with LED bulbs... so much more efficient than compact fluorescent! The 1 watt warm white bulbs do the trick in most places, I use the 3.5 watt cool white bulbs in the kitchen and my workshop. I can't believe I used to use a 500W halogen light for the workshop, but four 3.5 watt bulbs is more than enough for just about everything.

My household boils lots of water, so I recently invested in an insulated kettle which allows you to set the shut off temperature- now I "boil" water at about 85C which is perfect for making hot drinks, it takes much less time and energy than stove top boiling, or a plug in kettle boiling at 100C.

As a consumer, I wish there were more energy efficient options out there. My kettle buying experience taught me that there are about 40 inefficient kettles for every efficient one available in the marketplace. More pressure from us is essential to bring manufacturers around.

Better start laying the pressure on soon, because smart meter pricing is set to go into effect this year, which is going to screw lots of unprepared people with huge electricity bills!

Oh, and just to tie the big oil conspiracy into this discussion, Check this model example of consumers demanding and receiving more energy efficiency

[hamilton]

"Superfreakonomics" has a great chapter about geo-engineering.

[nibbler]

I am curious about what "team OIL's strategy" is, but prefer not donating my money towards their efforts where possible, so Ill be checking the library. If Levitt's reputation as a paid climate change denier wasn't already well established, I would consider buying his book.

Thanks for the heads up about it.

Edited January 21, 2010 by Guest

[hamilton]

Without going into too much detail, the chapter is generally about a bunch of polymath-scientist types who don't actually deny climate change - but believe that geo-engineering is a relatively inexpensive and productive way to deal with the situation without screwing up other environmental aspects.

IF this is true... why not geo-engineer?

[SaggyBalls]

If it's true then the solution would either be no-impact or reversible, which would be ideal.

I think that the earth may be able to handle short term reversals, but trying to strongarm mother earth into chilling out could be dangerous.

Anybody hear of any geo-engineering 'solutions' that are purported to be low-to-no impact?

[nibbler]

Without going into too much detail, the chapter is generally about a bunch of polymath-scientist types who don't actually deny climate change - but believe that geo-engineering is a relatively inexpensive and productive way to deal with the situation without screwing up other environmental aspects.

IF this is true... why not geo-engineer?

Entomologists have studied and established that bees navigate using polarized light. A question which the informed entomologist might ask the geoengineers:

What if the recent alarming trend of Colony Collapse Disorder is linked to changes in natural light polarization resulting from geo-engineering cloud whitening and sun dimming projects?

Input from biologists, climate scientists, chemists, bio-chemists, and entomologists to name a few, would be infinitely more reassuring than paid-pseudo science ramblings of "polymath-scientist types" referenced in the book.

It doesnt take a degree in biology however, to understand why geoengineers and multinationals like Monsanto would rather specific questions like this be avoided.

[SaggyBalls]

What do you folks think about Ocean Wave style electric generation or in-river hydroelectric generators?

Why dam a river when we don't have to toget some power from it?

Why not float generators out to sea?