From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Mon Dec 02 2002 - 07:35:44 MST
I've changed the subject to reflect the discussion topic.
On Sun, 1 Dec 2002, spike66 wrote:
> Of course it is an ambitious project, but there
> is no hurry. We do not need to have it finished
> before the singularity. It can be a 300 year
> project, eh? Or 3000.
Spike and I have been having an offline discussion on this
topic which is still in progress.
I think the flaw in his argument is the water requirement.
Cellulose and/or lignin are hydrocarbons and the hydrogen
has to come from water. There is also an energy requirement
(e.g. X amount of sunlight to fix X amount of C). Spike's
mass-balance analysis thus far only deals with the C and
doesn't deal with the H. As he points out we don't do
a heck of a lot to sustainably regulate water distribution
currently. But if in order to supply the H2O for maximal
growth to the area he decribes it is necessary to install
and maintain drip irrigation for all the trees then it is
quite a different scale project than simply planting the
number of trees he suggests.
I'm also not so sure I believe his growth projections for trees.
Under ideal circumstances perhaps -- but can one get "ideal"
circumstances for the area he proposes? Was the tree he
described in Wyoming?
I question the 300/3000 year time frame -- by then one may
have destroyed many island habitats. Spike needs to make
a strong assertion that it is morally reasonable that driving
that big truck of his may flood some island paradise (e.g.
the Mauritius). This may touch upon the recent thread
by J. Hughes on Singer's "One World" perspective.
The "tragedy of the commons" is going global. It is unclear
to me how much the impact of rising sea levels/temperatures
and increased storm frequency will be. Slower coral reef
growth (or increased death) leading to erosion of shorelines
as well as more violent/frequent hurricanes do have
significant economic consequences. These things must
be considered before adopting a complete "let it be"
perspective.
I'm moderately certain that there are perhaps two ways to
solve this. The first would involve solar ponds designed
to produce methane, which in turn can be converted to
hydrogen in reformers, that can be supplied with salt water
to grow engineered phytoplankton over much of the rangeland
of the U.S. southwest. This would eliminate the need for
U.S. oil imports. The second would involve a serious
program to fertilize oceanic phytoplankton that can sequester
carbon in the open oceans. This may require also engineering
them to be resistant to consumption by the organisms that
consume them and respire their carbon back into the ocean/atmosphere.
These paths are *not* going to make the environmentalists
happy. But I am reasonably certain they will solve the problem
of increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
No offense is intended towards Spike by these comments
(I presume he knows that coming from me).
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 17:58:32 MST