Load Leveling With Sea Sequestration

[Bret Cahill]

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

 

[Bob Masta]

On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 08:29:47 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com> wrote:

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+.

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!

 

[Bret Cahill]

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+.

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.

All or most of it doesn't need to be desalinated.

And even if it did, how much energy would it take to do the
needed reverse osmosis?

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.

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.

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

 

[Bret Cahill]

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. =A0Instead 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. =A0Only 75% of sea level rise comes from ice melt. =A025% comes from
irrigation from ground water. =A0The 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. =A0To 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. =A0One
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. =A0Just about all the aquifers are depleting so farmers will
eventually be getting water from the ocean anyway, even without
AGW causing droughts. =A0There is no way around that fact. =A0This
doesn't mean all the sea water must be desalinated just that it
could sweeten up things politically. =A0Few things are better in life
than to be on the winning side of a water war.

3. =A0Once the canals are dug, if necessary with my bare hands,
it could be all solar and wind. =A0The 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. =A0If 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+.

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.

All or most of it doesn't need to be desalinated.

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.

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.

.. . .

And even if it did, how much energy would it take to do the
needed reverse osmosis?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

A politician cannot get elected saying he doesn't like babies. Even
the Chinese "inner kingdom" has difficulty controlling population
growth.


Bret Cahill

 

[Bob Masta]

On Thu, 3 Jan 2013 20:37:26 -0800 (PST), Bret Cahill
<Bret_E_Cahill@yahoo.com> wrote:

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. =A0Instead 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. =A0Only 75% of sea level rise comes from ice melt. =A025% comes from
irrigation from ground water. =A0The 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. =A0To 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. =A0One
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. =A0Just about all the aquifers are depleting so farmers will
eventually be getting water from the ocean anyway, even without
AGW causing droughts. =A0There is no way around that fact. =A0This
doesn't mean all the sea water must be desalinated just that it
could sweeten up things politically. =A0Few things are better in life
than to be on the winning side of a water war.

3. =A0Once the canals are dug, if necessary with my bare hands,
it could be all solar and wind. =A0The 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. =A0If 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+.

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.

All or most of it doesn't need to be desalinated.

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.

And even if it did, how much energy would it take to do the
needed reverse osmosis?

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.

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.

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.

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!