Smoke and Mirrors

[StringJunky]

...And, of course, since you're worried about where you can put the power plant, nuclear is limited since you need cooling water. And areas prone to earthquakes are bad.

This popped up on Phys.Org the other day:

 

 

 

A novel nuclear power plant that will float eight or more miles out to sea promises to be safer, cheaper, and easier to deploy than today's land-based plants. In a concept developed by MIT researchers, the floating plant combines two well-established technologies—a nuclear reactor and a deep-sea oil platform. It is built and decommissioned in a shipyard, saving time and money at both ends of its life. Once deployed, it is situated in a relatively deep water well away from coastal populations, linked to land only by an underwater power transmission line. At the specified depth, the seawater protects the plant from earthquakes and tsunamis and can serve as an infinite source of cooling water in case of emergency—no pumping needed. An analysis of potential markets has identified many sites worldwide with physical and economic conditions suitable for deployment of a floating plant.

 

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-06-nuclear-power-miles-sea.html#jCp

[Harold Squared]

Marvelous, thank you for your contribution. We are digressing a bit from the topic but if the moderators are cool with it, I am as well.

 

Last night I thought I was posting to this thread and put my artificial iceberg idea on the "is this for real?" thread. Halfway through I figured out what was going on but left it there. Pykrete has a small additional benefit for the carbon phobic in that the cellulose of the wood pulp is effectively sequestered for the life of the vessel, if you can call it such.

 

Maybe semipermanent encapsulation of fission products in Pykrete could be contemplated? Stranger flights of fancy have taken to the skies.

 

Again, thank you for bringing this most interesting fact to our notice.

[StringJunky]

Marvelous, thank you for your contribution. We are digressing a bit from the topic but if the moderators are cool with it, I am as well.

 

Last night I thought I was posting to this thread and put my artificial iceberg idea on the "is this for real?" thread. Halfway through I figured out what was going on but left it there. Pykrete has a small additional benefit for the carbon phobic in that the cellulose of the wood pulp is effectively sequestered for the life of the vessel, if you can call it such.

 

Maybe semipermanent encapsulation of fission products in Pykrete could be contemplated? Stranger flights of fancy have taken to the skies.

 

Again, thank you for bringing this most interesting fact to our notice

Mordred and I have separately mentioned about an idea to pull nutrients off the seafloor to sustain large populations of oceanic phytoplankton for more cloud cover, reduced sea acidity, oxygen production and reducing carbon dioxide.

 

The only problem is an accessible power source. If some of the power from the oceanic power plant could be drawn to power oceanic-upwelling machinery situated around the rig you could be killing a few more birds with one stone; sorting climate change and supplying the grid.

[swansont]

This popped up on Phys.Org the other day:

 

 

Interesting, but another future concept that will probably not produce even a microwatt-millisecond of commercial power in the next decade.

[iNow]

That's not the point, swansont. Clearly the point is for us to continue spinning our wheels and avoiding action by chasing red herrings down rabbit holes like we've been doing these last 2 wasted decades correcting deniers, duh!

[StringJunky]

That's not the point, swansont. Clearly the point is for us to continue spinning our wheels and avoiding action by chasing red herrings down rabbit holes like we've been doing these last 2 wasted decades correcting deniers, duh!

You can't expect a humble clockmaker to see the potential.

[Harold Squared]

That's not the point, swansont. Clearly the point is for us to continue spinning our wheels and avoiding action by chasing red herrings down rabbit holes like we've been doing these last 2 wasted decades correcting deniers, duh!

MIXED METAPHOR ALERT, LOL!

 

Those who do not learn from history have not been looking at the actual record of temperatures vs CO2 levels and their divergence over the last few decades.

 

But there are other reasons to cease burning coal, petroleum, etc. For example a compact source of carbon for the fabrication of nanotuves and plastics, feedstock for useful materials of every description.

 

Returning to the artificial iceberg idea, natural bergs are not well shaped, we will want a nice oval or elliptical shape to avoid stress concentrations, and a nice even profile like a sheet cake, probably with a bump at the waterline to protect the cooling tubes and maybe a sacrificial ice bumper sticking out a bit. I am thinking there would be no reason for the parasols to track the sun, just have a nice flat surface with the thermosyphons sticking up and parasols either folded or deployed, maybe pneumatically. Simple and durable as possible.

Mordred and I have separately mentioned about an idea to pull nutrients off the seafloor to sustain large populations of oceanic phytoplankton for more cloud cover, reduced sea acidity, oxygen production and reducing carbon dioxide.

 

The only problem is an accessible power source. If some of the power from the oceanic power plant could be drawn to power oceanic-upwelling machinery situated around the rig you could be killing a few more birds with one stone; sorting climate change and supplying the grid.

Climate change will continue no matter what we do, as the geologic records indicate. The question as I see it is how best to adapt to it.

 

I agree with you and Mordred that fertilization of sunlight rich and nutrient poor waters might be a clever idea. An adequate "seed" of a floating nuclear reactor could be all that is required. A low voltage from such a source passed through metal mesh would allow dissolved sea minerals to adhere to the mesh and eventually produce a structure of any size and shape desired from indigenous materials. Like the Pykrete iceberg, some attention to the upkeep of the structure and some energy expenditure would be involved. Unlike the Pykrete, such a platform would be well suited to the tropics.

 

Given cheap, reliable energy and the demand for such products, either platform would do to extract magnesium metal, uranium, and other useful materials from the waters thereabouts.

 

Again, for the carbon phobic, such a structure would sequester the dreaded CO2, dat ole debbil, in the form of calcium carbonate. See Wikipedia entry on "biorock" for more details.

 

Excess carbonate so precipitated could be combined with hydrogen derived via electrolysis per the Sabatier reaction, voilà, methane. Ship it anywhere radiation phobic consumers want it.

 

Wishing you all great success and with profound thanks for your interest and stimulating remarks.

Edited June 29, 2015 by Harold Squared

[swansont]

 

Those who do not learn from history have not been looking at the actual record of temperatures vs CO2 levels and their divergence over the last few decades.

 

They're both going up. What divergence are you seeing? They will not be in lock-step, because their relationship is not linear.

[Harold Squared]

 

They're both going up. What divergence are you seeing? They will not be in lock-step, because their relationship is not linear.

Agreed. They seem to be getting less so, probably a temporary abberation. This is of interest only to those outside the fold, ignorant enough to think that a increase in temperature causes decreased solubility of CO2 and therefore leads such an increase in atmospheric gas levels.

 

We know better, hahahah!

 

And we are no more to be chasing scarlet sardines through rabbit warrens, ha-ha, has iNow compiled the list of victims for our class action lawsuit? If he can find them in India think how much easier it will be to identify them here in the USA.

 

Maybe he can go down to Sixth Street in Austin this weekend and get some brave and well lubricated volunteers to come forward.

 

Anyway, returning to the topic and my artificial iceberg idea, keeping the 'Berg shaded and recirculating heat from the waterline periphery to the center of the bottom should work pretty well without consuming additional energy, as it would in effect be one big thermosyphon, or a series of smaller ones, more likely.

 

And wow! At some point the thermosyphons in the Alaskan pipeline will need to be retired in our carbon free future, we can recycle them to 'Bergs like this.

 

Taking the long view, combustion resources will be exhausted even if not banned, so it makes sense to plan accordingly even if the AGW is utter rubbish, absolute drivel, and completely unbelievable nonsense.

 

Of course I personally no longer hold this to be the case, being won over by you guys, good show.

Edited July 2, 2015 by Harold Squared

[swansont]

Agreed. They seem to be getting less so, probably a temporary abberation. This is of interest only to those outside the fold, ignorant enough to think that a increase in temperature causes decreased solubility of CO2 and therefore leads such an increase in atmospheric gas levels.

 

We know better, hahahah!

 

 

"We" do?

http://docs.engineeringtoolbox.com/documents/1148/solubility-co2-water.png

 

Pretty clear that the solubility decreases with temperature. Really the only question here is whether you actually believe what you are spouting. Since it's so obviously false and easily debunked, it's really hard to imagine you do.

[Harold Squared]

 

"We" do?

http://docs.engineeringtoolbox.com/documents/1148/solubility-co2-water.png

 

Pretty clear that the solubility decreases with temperature. Really the only question here is whether you actually believe what you are spouting. Since it's so obviously false and easily debunked, it's really hard to imagine you do.

Whether you are inclined to believe or disbelieve my conversion is not related to the topic, actually. What is, and is of more interest to me at least, is your opinion of the artificial iceberg notion.

 

Since more ice is better, as evidenced by the concern about the polar ice caps vanishing, such barriers could prevent natural icebergs from departing for warmer waters if deployed in an appropriate manner. Since the principal component of these is ice itself, adverse environmental impact and expense should be low.

 

If we adopt a standardized design with a reusable floating mold we could let each winter do a portion of the work, adding freshwater and wood pulp from local sources in the North Pacific each summer, adding plumbing as indicated. When completed, the mold is readied for the next one as the 'Berg is towed to the Arctic. Blockade some fjords in Alaska to see how effective it is, then Greenland, then Antarctica.

[swansont]

Whether you are inclined to believe or disbelieve my conversion is not related to the topic, actually. What is, and is of more interest to me at least, is your opinion of the artificial iceberg notion.

 

Given your pattern of posting, I doubt you would respond to any critique of mine in a substantive way.

[Harold Squared]

Does that mean you have no interest in the topic? And why are you talking mean to me after I have been won over to the AGW side? I am a good guy now, remember this is a "moral issue".

 

Returning to the topic, we could see more immediate results upon the ice volume using such an approach vs incremental reduction in a certain atmospheric trace gas, although as previously mentioned the wood pulp's carbon would be isolated from circulation for the life of the structures.

 

Given your pattern of posting, I doubt you would respond to any critique of mine in a substantive way.

You like stuff that is terrestrial and cheap, right? Plus it is proven, almost pedestrian technology, just deployed in an unusual way.

[dimreepr]

You like stuff that is terrestrial and cheap, right? Plus it is proven, almost pedestrian technology, just deployed in an unusual way.

 

 

IOW stuff that works.

[swansont]

Does that mean you have no interest in the topic?

 

In that particular one, no, not really.

And why are you talking mean to me after I have been won over to the AGW side?

 

Let's say I am not convinced of your sincerity.

I am a good guy now, remember this is a "moral issue".

 

Is that what is is?

You like stuff that is terrestrial and cheap, right?

 

If that's what you took away from the other discussions, then I'm afraid you missed quite a lot.

[Harold Squared]

 

In that particular one, no, not really.

 

 

Let's say I am not convinced of your sincerity.

 

 

Is that what is is?

 

 

If that's what you took away from the other discussions, then I'm afraid you missed quite a lot.

1.) Very well. On another thread the effect of Mt. Pinatubo's recent eruption("smoke", if you will) and its impact on global temperatures (-0.5 C for a few years) was brought up. Rather than dump large amounts of particulates into the atmosphere, it seems to me that increasing the albedo at the poles would be a more appropriate approach. By controlling the number of parasols deployed in sunny weather we could tailoer the global temperatures index with some precision in theory.

 

2.) Fair enough, but you sound like my ex wife.

 

3.) Ask Bill Clinton.

 

4.) Your principal objections to date have been on such grounds, not so?

[swansont]

1.) Very well. On another thread the effect of Mt. Pinatubo's recent eruption("smoke", if you will) and its impact on global temperatures (-0.5 C for a few years) was brought up. Rather than dump large amounts of particulates into the atmosphere, it seems to me that increasing the albedo at the poles would be a more appropriate approach. By controlling the number of parasols deployed in sunny weather we could tailoer the global temperatures index with some precision in theory.

 

So present some kind of analysis that show what the actual effect should be. How much cooling would you expect?

3.) Ask Bill Clinton.

 

Why? Once again, you present no supporting information for your position.

4.) Your principal objections to date have been on such grounds, not so?

 

You've really missed the whole context of my objection to your space solar plan.

[overtone]

Agreed. They seem to be getting less so, probably a temporary abberation.

It turns out they aren't, so there's no aberration to worry about.

 

This is of interest only to those outside the fold, ignorant enough to think that a increase in temperature causes decreased solubility of CO2 and therefore leads such an increase in atmospheric gas levels.

That would be very ignorant indeed, since it's been so thoroughly checked out and found to be not happening, and this information is so widely and easily available.

 

 

 

On another thread the effect of Mt. Pinatubo's recent eruption("smoke", if you will) and its impact on global temperatures (-0.5 C for a few years) was brought up.

That would be -.5C for one year in the northern hemisphere only, and -.4C for a few months over "large areas of the planet". Not "a few years", not a full 1/2 degree C globally. http://pubs.usgs.gov/pinatubo/self/ Edited July 10, 2015 by overtone

[Harold Squared]

http://pubs.usgs.gov/pinatubo/self/

Thanks for the link. It seems to indicate "changes to weather and climate over the past three years following the eruption."

It seems reasonable to infer a peak to such effects.

 

The interesting thing to me and what returns us to the topic is that the effects of the eruption took very little time compared to the CO2 buildup to have a similar and opposite effect, however transitory.

 

This suggests to me that I might be on the right track. If our objective is to control the climate, some means of manipulating the radiation balance would be easier to "tune" if you will, than altering atmospheric composition. We could get feedback more quickly and act accordingly.

 

I have been working on the artificial iceberg idea, optimum thickness, etc. but there is no great urgency since there is more Arctic ice now at this time of year than has been the case since 2005.

 

Back in 1977, by the way, no less a person than Krafft Ehricke himself advocated using Mirrors in space to prevent crop failures in the next Ice Age.

Why? Once again, you present no supporting information for your position.

 

Bill Clinton? Forgive the digression. When you asked "what is is", I suddenly recalled William Jefferson Clinton's testimony during his ridiculous fellatio scandal investigating the definition of " is", the word.

 

Totally off topic. BUT, the fate of millions or billions of people for better or worse must be a moral issue.

[swansont]

 

Back in 1977, by the way, no less a person than Krafft Ehricke himself advocated using Mirrors in space to prevent crop failures in the next Ice Age.

 

One the one hand, so what? That seems like an appeal to authority. Ehricke was an expert only in the "space" part of this.

 

On the other, he had math/analysis in his proposal, something that seems poisonous to you

 

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1734&dat=19770207&id=SVAcAAAAIBAJ&sjid=olEEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6602,2831215&hl=en

 

He also acknowledged it would take ~10 years to do Lunetta and ~ 25 for Soletta, and the only nonexistent technology involved was the space shuttle.

 

And this doesn't touch upon objections anyone might have had to such a proposal; its mere existence means a lot less than you imply.

[Harold Squared]

It is of historical interest and relevant to the topic. It would be interesting to know how long it will take to see results of the complete cessation of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions and the new climate equilibrium.

 

Particularly since there has been ZERO effect on such levels to date despite the projected expenditure of over a trillion euros.

 

Earlier in the thread I believe an estimate of the total equivalent of the United States moonshot program per annum for a decade was supposed to be involved.

 

Where is all that supposed to come from?

 

The usual sources today are taxpayers and ratepayers, as one of our colleagues pointed out on another thread, the difference between them is dependent upon government policy.

[iNow]

It would be interesting to know how long it will take to see results of the complete cessation of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions and the new climate equilibrium.

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S38/51/51I69/index.xml?section=topstories

Even if carbon dioxide emissions came to a sudden halt, the carbon dioxide already in Earth's atmosphere could continue to warm our planet for hundreds of years, according to Princeton University-led research published in the journal Nature Climate Change. The study suggests that it might take a lot less carbon than previously thought to reach the global temperature scientists deem unsafe.

 

Scientists commonly use the scenario of emissions screeching to a stop to gauge the heat-trapping staying power of carbon dioxide. Within a millennium of this simulated shutoff, the carbon itself faded steadily with 40 percent absorbed by Earth's oceans and landmasses within 20 years and 80 percent soaked up at the end of the 1,000 years.

 

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n1/full/nclimate2060.html

Recent studies have suggested that global mean surface temperature would remain approximately constant on multi-century timescales after CO2 emissions. <snip> surface temperature may actually increase on multi-century timescales after an initial century-long decrease. This occurs in spite of a decline in radiative forcing that exceeds the decline in ocean heat uptake—a circumstance that would otherwise be expected to lead to a decline in global temperature.

 

The reason is that the warming effect of decreasing ocean heat uptake together with feedback effects arising in response to the geographic structure of ocean heat uptake overcompensates the cooling effect of decreasing atmospheric CO2 on multi-century timescales.

[swansont]

It is of historical interest and relevant to the topic. It would be interesting to know how long it will take to see results of the complete cessation of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions and the new climate equilibrium.

 

Particularly since there has been ZERO effect on such levels to date despite the projected expenditure of over a trillion euros.

 

Another bald assertion that I assume you will not even attempt to support, since it is of course false.

[Harold Squared]

 

Another bald assertion that I assume you will not even attempt to support, since it is of course false.

How so? Recall that on another thread recently that the German government is prepared to spend a trillion euros for their switch to "renewables" (excluding nuclear). This was biased, perhaps, but you sir are living proof that biased guys can be clever and possess a certain degree of integrity.

 

Meanwhile iNow's data seem to support my approach, will wonders never cease?

Edited July 10, 2015 by Harold Squared

[overtone]

 

 

Particularly since there has been ZERO effect on such levels to date despite the projected expenditure of over a trillion euros.

In what mad universe is a projected expenditure by a government supposed to have made a retroactive difference in a current problem?