Interesting video I saw today from Real Engineering, wherein he explores the idea of turning the Sahara and the Australian outback into forests to sequester carbon from the atmosphere. The idea...
Interesting video I saw today from Real Engineering, wherein he explores the idea of turning the Sahara and the Australian outback into forests to sequester carbon from the atmosphere. The idea seems to be a bit of a mixed bag, as the emissions from generating the electricity needed to desalinate and pump the irrigation water, along with the decrease in the planet's albedo could offset the reduction in warming from sequestration. Still, during the first hundred years of growth, the forests would consume fully half of our current carbon output. Used in conjunction with other technologies like orbital solar shades, afforestation projects like this could really help repair some of the damage done to our planet.
If they did this for the Sahara, the only option would be to use solar and wind energy. Most other options would worsen the problem. For this case, I'm assuming that other than the political mess...
If they did this for the Sahara, the only option would be to use solar and wind energy. Most other options would worsen the problem. For this case, I'm assuming that other than the political mess in the region, the Sahara is primed for solar energy.
Oh definitely, that's the assumption. But solar panels, especially manufactured on these colossal scales, do still have a non-zero carbon footprint that needs to be considered when discussing...
Oh definitely, that's the assumption. But solar panels, especially manufactured on these colossal scales, do still have a non-zero carbon footprint that needs to be considered when discussing sequestration efforts. It's low, about 70g/kwh, but we're talking many TWh of electricity.
It's interesting from an engineering perspective, but I'm very skeptical of claims that we can geoengineer our way out of climate change. It seems too often to be used in the form of "we don't...
It's interesting from an engineering perspective, but I'm very skeptical of claims that we can geoengineer our way out of climate change. It seems too often to be used in the form of "we don't need to reduce carbon emissions now, since there's all these promising geoengineering projects on the horizon!"
It reminds me of a vote we had here in Seattle a few years ago. Our transit network is getting expanded with more light rail / subway lines, and there was a ballot initiative to approve tax increases to fund it. A lot of the opposition centered around "driverless cars will be here Real Soon Now, so why bother building new mass transit?"
That's a fair criticism, but fact is we're going to need geoengineering to be part of the solution to climate change. The carbon we've already emitted is enough to have catastrophic effects on the...
That's a fair criticism, but fact is we're going to need geoengineering to be part of the solution to climate change. The carbon we've already emitted is enough to have catastrophic effects on the planet, and even if we went carbon neutral tomorrow, it needs to be dealt with. Not that the possibility of sequestration should ever be used as an excuse to miss emissions targets or set less aggressive ones.
The best engineering solution that I can imagine is a solar shade. However, aside from the technological problems, there are political problems. Russia seems to be in favor of global warming. We...
The best engineering solution that I can imagine is a solar shade. However, aside from the technological problems, there are political problems. Russia seems to be in favor of global warming.
We also need to lower CO2 to stop ocean acidification, and the solar shade does not solve that problem.
Yeah, solar shades would be incredibly useful in counteracting albedo reductions from afforestation schemes like this, as well as stopping the vicious cycle of melting ice caps. Regarding...
Yeah, solar shades would be incredibly useful in counteracting albedo reductions from afforestation schemes like this, as well as stopping the vicious cycle of melting ice caps.
Regarding political problems, as long as we manage to get them out of our elections, Russia we can deal with. Their GDP is smaller than Italy's, even if they refuse to move towards clean power, their carbon emissions are manageable though global sequestration efforts. The problem is when the government of the world's largest economy thinks climate change is a Chinese hoax and that bringing back coal is a pretty neat idea.
Interesting video I saw today from Real Engineering, wherein he explores the idea of turning the Sahara and the Australian outback into forests to sequester carbon from the atmosphere. The idea seems to be a bit of a mixed bag, as the emissions from generating the electricity needed to desalinate and pump the irrigation water, along with the decrease in the planet's albedo could offset the reduction in warming from sequestration. Still, during the first hundred years of growth, the forests would consume fully half of our current carbon output. Used in conjunction with other technologies like orbital solar shades, afforestation projects like this could really help repair some of the damage done to our planet.
If they did this for the Sahara, the only option would be to use solar and wind energy. Most other options would worsen the problem. For this case, I'm assuming that other than the political mess in the region, the Sahara is primed for solar energy.
Oh definitely, that's the assumption. But solar panels, especially manufactured on these colossal scales, do still have a non-zero carbon footprint that needs to be considered when discussing sequestration efforts. It's low, about 70g/kwh, but we're talking many TWh of electricity.
It's interesting from an engineering perspective, but I'm very skeptical of claims that we can geoengineer our way out of climate change. It seems too often to be used in the form of "we don't need to reduce carbon emissions now, since there's all these promising geoengineering projects on the horizon!"
It reminds me of a vote we had here in Seattle a few years ago. Our transit network is getting expanded with more light rail / subway lines, and there was a ballot initiative to approve tax increases to fund it. A lot of the opposition centered around "driverless cars will be here Real Soon Now, so why bother building new mass transit?"
That's a fair criticism, but fact is we're going to need geoengineering to be part of the solution to climate change. The carbon we've already emitted is enough to have catastrophic effects on the planet, and even if we went carbon neutral tomorrow, it needs to be dealt with. Not that the possibility of sequestration should ever be used as an excuse to miss emissions targets or set less aggressive ones.
The best engineering solution that I can imagine is a solar shade. However, aside from the technological problems, there are political problems. Russia seems to be in favor of global warming.
We also need to lower CO2 to stop ocean acidification, and the solar shade does not solve that problem.
Yeah, solar shades would be incredibly useful in counteracting albedo reductions from afforestation schemes like this, as well as stopping the vicious cycle of melting ice caps.
Regarding political problems, as long as we manage to get them out of our elections, Russia we can deal with. Their GDP is smaller than Italy's, even if they refuse to move towards clean power, their carbon emissions are manageable though global sequestration efforts. The problem is when the government of the world's largest economy thinks climate change is a Chinese hoax and that bringing back coal is a pretty neat idea.