During my time here in Sweden I wrote some business profiles for a
newspaper to earn my keep. Some of them were environmental startups,
often quite small and fledgling. When I looked into it, there were a
number of very bright, creative, and enthusiastic people finding
solutions to things on a small scale, but which had the potential to go
much further. This small-scale engineering seems to miss the
government's radar. Not deemed worthy enough for investment (unlike the
oil industry). Although the Swedish Government does seem to be picking
up some of these types of company, unlike the UK.
For instance, ClimateWell
(http://www.climatewell.com/index.php?pageId=2), now growing quite a
lot, make a solar powered heating and cooling system, using basically a
salt battery for energy storage. When you scale such systems up, the
reduction on electricity demands in regions such as the Med, USA,middle
east and so forth is massive.
Engineering that provides local or small scale solutions, to our ways of
life, housing, offices, transport etc, is where the savings will come
from for GHG reduction, not geo-engineering. The return on investment
for these projects in terms of tCO2e seems much higher.
yet whilst such companies exist in england, such as the excellent wave
power research in Scotland, the products are exported or lack investment
to make them marketable.
Jonathan
Alastair McIntosh wrote:
> Prof Stephen Salter of Edinburgh University gave a talk on his approach to
> geo-engineering at the Falkland Big Tent festival last Saturday. At question
> time I said to him, "What's your response to those who say that
> geo-engineering is planetary methadone for planetary heroin addiction?"
>
> He replied, and I paraphrase his answer from memory: "Every one of us
> working on this is aware of that, and we would not be working on it if we
> could see any better options."
>
> Alastair.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Oliver Tickell
> Sent: 01 August 2008 09:22
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: geo-engineering - the new biofuels?
>
>
> My own view (and that argued in Kyoto2 (the book)) is as follows:
>
> 1. The dangers of a runaway greenhouse effect taking hold are such that we
> need to be ready to deploy geo-engineering solutions in that event.
> 2. This means doing serious research on the subject now.
> 3. We need to look for several things in the solutions chosen: immediacy of
> impact; rapid reversibility; low wider environmental impact (and if possible
> beneficial collaterals); and low cost.
>
> I don't think we should confuse biochar projects with geo-engineering.
> Biochar production is something rather long term which does of course
> sequester carbon but whose main benefit is probably in the form of soil
> improvement, enhancing fertility and water retention qualities. What it will
> not do is to turn around a runaway greenhouse phenomenon, though in the long
> term it is part of the solution set that we need to deploy.
>
> For geo-engineering options, most can be dismissed as costly, hard to
> reverse or plain crazy. But one that appeals to me is the idea developed by
> John Latham of using wind-powered ocean yachts to create and disperse saline
> micro-droplets to act as cloud condensation nuclei and so make marine clouds
> brighter and more reflective. This approach scores high on all the criteria
> listed above.
>
> More on all this in Kyoto2 pp.196-197 (biochar) and pp.198-205
> (geo-engineering). Oliver.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion list for the Crisis Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of CHRIS KEENE
> Sent: 31 July 2008 22:36
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [Fwd: Edinburgh- Lecturer in Social policy for biochar and soil
> carbon storage]
>
> I would be interested in knowing what people think of geo-engineering?
> Is it to become the new biofuels?
>
> Chris
>
>
>
Get Hotmail on your Mobile! Try it Now!
