Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Injecting sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere to counter global warming

curtisb.posthaven.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 67 posts

Re: Injecting sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere to counter global warming

#41

Post by ScottBurson »

I strongly recommend that anyone interested in geoengineering read Oliver Morton's excellent book, The Planet Remade: How Geoengineering Could Change the World. I found it engagingly written, chock full of interesting science, and open-minded without being credulous.

I think we're going to have to try stratospheric sulfur aerosols within the next decade or so. Yes, I know it doesn't solve the ocean acidification problem. I think we should be experimenting with iron fertilization for that purpose. It might not work, or the side-effects might be too severe, but the attitude of the scientific community has been to actively suppress any such research, and I think that's a serious mistake.

It is not a choice of whether we dare to modify the biosphere, or not. We are already modifying it! That genie is not going back in the bottle. We should be learning how to modify it intentionally as well as unintentionally.

Re: Injecting sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere to counter global warming

#42

Post by spqr0a1 »

08-15 wrote: post #40
codecamper wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually the cost of the Iraq war is 2 trillion. I think that is 2e12 usd! And these days you can deploy utility solar for $1.5 a watt. For 2e12 USD you'd get 1.5e12 watts. That's 1500GW solar generation capacity. Talk about a missed opportunity. Wikipedia says the US uses about 5e9 MWh electricity per year. How close is 1500GW solar generation from 5e9 MWh? Anyone know? (realizing that we'd need batteries too at som…

> How close is 1500GW solar generation from 5e9 MWh [per year]? Almost six orders of magnitude too low. 1GW nameplate capacity is about 100MW actual generation, so 1500GW[nameplate] x 8600h = 13GWh = 13000 MWh, comparable to 5e3MWh in round numbers. (This is such a t terrible result, I'm inclined to think you got your numbers wrong.)

13GWh is way off! 1500GW x 8600h x 0.1 capacity factor = 1,300,000GWh or 1.3e9MWh. Within an order of magnitude of US electricity demand.

Re: Injecting sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere to counter global warming

#43

Post by 08-15 »

spqr0a1 wrote: post #42
08-15 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How close is 1500GW solar generation from 5e9 MWh [per year]? Almost six orders of magnitude too low. 1GW nameplate capacity is about 100MW actual generation, so 1500GW[nameplate] x 8600h = 13GWh = 13000 MWh, comparable to 5e3MWh in round numbers. (This is such a t terrible result, I'm inclined to think you got your numbers wrong.)

13GWh is way off! 1500GW x 8600h x 0.1 capacity factor = 1,300,000GWh or 1.3e9MWh. Within an order of magnitude of US electricity demand.

Oh dear, you're completely right. Beer and orders of magnitude don't seem to mix. :-/

Re: Injecting sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere to counter global warming

#44

Post by astrodust »

soVeryTired wrote: post #24
s_kilk wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We'll use Snakes to solve the Rat problem, then we'll send in Boars to take care of the Snake problem. Of course, we'll need Bears to deal with the Boars when they get out of control.

Once winter rolls around, the bears hibernate and the problem disappears.

Tell me you're running for office. That's logic so air-tight who could not vote for you.

Re: Injecting sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere to counter global warming

#45

Post by astrodust »

jdavis703 wrote: post #6
dfarts wrote: post #5

Wouldn't it be better to stop pollution and let the Earth recover on her own accord in time?

That's never going to happen. Americans will never give up their trucks. The Chinese won't give up their coal fired power plants. Developing nations won't give up slash and burn forestry programs. Why? Because we're all motivated by greed. Instead I think the solution is to make pollution expensive: some have proposed a carbon tax as one way of dealing with this. Perhaps there are other ways involving behavioral econ…

Americans are giving up on their trucks: http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/07/the-clearest-explanat...

China is giving up on coal fired power plants: http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2016/10/21/china-coal-crack...

Why? Because things change.

Re: Injecting sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere to counter global warming

#46

Post by astrodust »

08-15 wrote: post #39
microcolonel wrote: post #36

Anyone watch Snowpiercer?

Are you suggesting the solution is a Sacred Engine running on... uhhh... magic and small children, I guess? (I get it, you're implying that the release of some "cooling compound" might cause an ice age. I'm just not convinced that a 2+ hours long string of plot holes and terrible acting can teach us anything.)

I'm still wondering who performs maintenance on those tracks.

Re: Injecting sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere to counter global warming

#47

Post by microcolonel »

08-15 wrote: post #39
microcolonel wrote: post #36

Anyone watch Snowpiercer?

Are you suggesting the solution is a Sacred Engine running on... uhhh... magic and small children, I guess? (I get it, you're implying that the release of some "cooling compound" might cause an ice age. I'm just not convinced that a 2+ hours long string of plot holes and terrible acting can teach us anything.)

I think that the more plot holes and mediocre acting a movie has, the more it teaches us. ;- )

Re: Injecting sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere to counter global warming

#48

Post by lisivka »

jdavis703 wrote: post #6
dfarts wrote: post #5

Wouldn't it be better to stop pollution and let the Earth recover on her own accord in time?

That's never going to happen. Americans will never give up their trucks. The Chinese won't give up their coal fired power plants. Developing nations won't give up slash and burn forestry programs. Why? Because we're all motivated by greed. Instead I think the solution is to make pollution expensive: some have proposed a carbon tax as one way of dealing with this. Perhaps there are other ways involving behavioral econ…

I agree: taxing of pollution will change behavior of polluters while also will gather money for ecological programs. European Union is already doing that:

The total revenue from environmental taxes in the EU-28 in 2014 was EUR 343.6 billion; this figure equates to 2.5 % of gross domestic product (GDP) and to 6.3 % of the total revenues derived from all taxes and social contributions (see Table 1).

http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/...

Re: Injecting sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere to counter global warming

#49

Post by astrodust »

twic wrote: post #27
igravious wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Referring to your bio info. "People will downvote a throwaway account much more aggressively than a non-throwaway. Liberating, but a little disappointing." You're meant to use it briefly and then, you know, throw it away. The clue is in the name! You've had your account for 1077 days, that's hardly temporary. All your account is is anonymous, not temporary.

In a very real sense, all our accounts are temporary.

People who won't at least pretend to stand behind their remarks are going to get slammed more heavily than those who will be around to face criticism.

Re: Injecting sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere to counter global warming

#50

Post by lisivka »

codecamper wrote: post #35
throwaway5752 wrote: post #4

It's all pointless. Massive photovoltaic infra could have been deployed decades ago but it would have harmed wealthy interests so they injected tens of billions of dollars into disrupting and controlling the political system of the US. Putting the continuation of this civilization as we know it at risk, all for a bit of money in a single person's lifespan. And it worked. In bad moments one wonders if it's better off…

Actually the cost of the Iraq war is 2 trillion. I think that is 2e12 usd! And these days you can deploy utility solar for $1.5 a watt. For 2e12 USD you'd get 1.5e12 watts. That's 1500GW solar generation capacity. Talk about a missed opportunity. Wikipedia says the US uses about 5e9 MWh electricity per year. How close is 1500GW solar generation from 5e9 MWh? Anyone know? (realizing that we'd need batteries too at som…

Yep, it is quite possible to light graves of victims of terrorist attacks with solar energy. It is much much cheaper than a war.
Post reply on HN