Connect with us

Load Leveling With Sea Sequestration

Discussion in 'Electronic Basics' started by Bret Cahill, Jan 2, 2013.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. Bret Cahill

    Bret Cahill Guest

    Carbon abatement schemes always seem too much like closing -- or
    rather not closing -- the barn door while forgetting about the horse.
    Something needs to be done about the immediate effects like sea level
    rise and ocean acidification. Instead of a billion people building
    higher and higher levees and sea walls every 20 years while hoping
    the
    CO2 will just go away, it might be cheaper to just sequester and/or
    reverse osmosis sea water for irrigation and aquifer injection to
    stop
    sea level rise.

    Obviously it seems like an impossibly massive project, but consider,

    1. Only 75% of sea level rise comes from ice melt. 25% comes from
    irrigation from ground water. The project would need to pump less
    than -- maybe much less than -- 4 times more water out of the ocean
    than all the planets' farmers pump for irrigation. To be sure most
    irrigation water isn't pumped very far but on the other hand farmers
    do not seem to complain a lot about irrigation pumping costs. One
    week or so of a lower Mississipi flow rate should equal all the
    world's
    farm runoff for a year, a couple months the entire sea level rise.

    2. Just about all the aquifers are depleting so farmers will
    eventually be getting water from the ocean anyway, even without
    AGW causing droughts. There is no way around that fact. This
    doesn't mean all the sea water must be desalinated just that it
    could sweeten up things politically. Few things are better in life
    than to be on the winning side of a water war.

    3. Once the canals are dug, if necessary with my bare hands,
    it could be all solar and wind. The pump system as well as the
    grid could be over-sized to help load level.

    The proposal isn't to drop carbon taxation or cap and trade but to
    consider the more immediate effects, weight them by the cumulative
    carbon footprint, and put them into the overall equation.

    Something similar to ocean de acidification credits would be
    included. If a country wants to burn oil or coal or cut down its
    rainforests it would look for some lime deposits or other source of
    OH+.


    Bret Cahill
     
  2. Bob Masta

    Bob Masta Guest


    I suspect most water used for irrigation will just end up
    back in the oceans, not recharging any aquifers, so no help
    with sea level rise.

    And even if it did, how much energy would it take to do the
    needed reverse osmosis? Any energy you use there is going
    to add to atmospheric CO2 if you get it from fossil fuels,
    and if you get it from renewables you are still making the
    overall problem worse compared to using those renewables to
    replace other fossil fuel use.
    Bob Masta

    DAQARTA v7.20
    Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
    www.daqarta.com
    Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
    Frequency Counter, Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI
    FREE Signal Generator, DaqMusic generator
    Science with your sound card!
     
  3. Bret Cahill

    Bret Cahill Guest

    Carbon abatement schemes always seem too much like closing -- or
    All or most of it doesn't need to be desalinated.
    Several hundred gigawatts to do all the sea level rise. At 60 cents/
    watt it would be over $200 billion for PV.

    This would be pro rated by a country's carbon history or use.
    The problem with the IPCC is they focus on carbon abatement only while
    ignoring the more immediate side effects.

    If you can't get to point B there's no reason to focus exclusively on
    C.

    Just because the CO2 came before the warming does not necessarily mean
    that the first thing they should do is try to do is to stop burning
    the fossil fuels, especially since it appears to be such a daunting
    task.

    It's like a frying pan that caught on fire. Sure you will eventually
    want to turn off the heat but the first thing you do is take the pan
    off the stove and put out the fire in the pan.

    Geo engineering needs to be included along with carbon taxes, credits
    cap & trade in any international scheme.

    Humans have been geo engineering from day one so that is not an
    issue.


    Bret Cahill
     
  4. Bret Cahill

    Bret Cahill Guest

    Carbon abatement schemes always seem too much like closing -- or
    The idea was to sequester sea water. In some areas the ground water
    is not just brine, it's toxic. It's illegal to pump anything into the
    ground anywhere in California but that law was written without
    considering either sea level rise or the regions with bad ground
    water.

    In regions where they ground water is good enough for irrigation then
    the water would need to be ROed.

    .. . .

    Sometimes procrastination works. The local utility was the last to do
    anything to meet California's regulations. They waited and waited.
    Finally PV dropped to $0.60 watt and they suddenly were able to exceed
    the requirements. It's hard to believe anyone there was that smart.
    If all buring of all fossil fuel ceased tomorrow flooding would
    continue to worsen.

    The carbon abatement community seems to just want to close the barn
    door when there are more immediate problems resulting from past
    ignorance that will require solutions.

    The IPCC provides nothing in the way of getting to point B, just some
    idealized zero carbon point C, almost as though they are hoping the
    resulting famines and geo wars will wipe out enough people to make the
    planet sustainable.
    A politician cannot get elected saying he doesn't like babies. Even
    the Chinese "inner kingdom" has difficulty controlling population
    growth.


    Bret Cahill
     
  5. Bob Masta

    Bob Masta Guest

    Huh? As far as I know there are very few useful crops
    (approaching "none") that can grow in even brackish water,
    let alone straight seawater. Every now and then there's an
    article in New Scientist or Science News about experiments
    to create such crops, but never any success stories.
    As you may have noticed, nobody has actually been doing much
    of anything about CO2 emissions, except promising to
    consider it at some future date. And reducing carbon
    emissions is a lot simpler, more assured of success, with
    more bang for the buck, than complicated and totally
    unproven geo-engineering schemes.

    Not to mention that the worst thing about geo-engineering is
    it gives the foot-draggers (and knuckle-draggers) still more
    incentive to do nothing about the real problem.

    Best regards,


    Bob Masta

    DAQARTA v7.20
    Data AcQuisition And Real-Time Analysis
    www.daqarta.com
    Scope, Spectrum, Spectrogram, Sound Level Meter
    Frequency Counter, Pitch Track, Pitch-to-MIDI
    FREE Signal Generator, DaqMusic generator
    Science with your sound card!
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-