Alumni/SDM/VMS/CoLab Hybrid Initiative: Alumni Mentors Fast Track CoLab Concepts by iWENN

I would like to draw the attention of reader to the below 'Global Plan' which is currently in the last days of voting. Although my past work is used in this proposal and I have joined the team (and given my vote to the effort) many others have contributed. The following text was posted today within the Global Plan in support of the proposal and I ask all readers to spend a few minutes in reviewing the options and place your vote before the deadline.

The Global Plan: Make Climate a Top Priority for Action by Every Global Citizen and Organization is, without exception, the most well thought out, actionable and inclusive of any proposal ever submitted within the CoLab experiment and should be selected/supported by those that truly understand that we need such broad based efforts if we are to realistically challenge the power base which has brought us to this global scale point of collective suicide.

All of the other 4 Global Plan proposals, currently in the voting stage, are supported, either directly or indirectly, within this proposal (including my own) and thus voting for this highly inclusive plan would be supporting the entire spectrum of proposals.

In brief, we fundamentally need to rally around a comprehensive and inclusive central plan, such as this proposal offers, so that the effort(s) and funding can be focused with the most strength and done so in the shortest possible time: for time is not our ally in this life or death struggle.

To reject this proposal would be to be to reject the existential need to substantially confront the power base which threatens our very existence. 

In the simplest words: which side of the struggle do you wish to support?

Michael

Hello Doug,

Yes, there is interest in a new type of nuclear reactor and I'm sure Mr. Gates would like to see collaboration on that venture.

However, the Gates Foundation, and many other high-end foundations, are looking for less contentious energy (and water/nutrient) ideas for use in the developing nations. Defining a suite of renewable energy, water and nutrient management near term development needs is on many radar screens and the new coalition is, I am sure, well aware of how important it is to leverage their resources with other investor's funding (interests).

The Breakthrough Energy Coalition should be given the opportunity to get organized and fully functional before folks start jumping to conclusions as to the scope of the work they will wish to support.  

Thanks for the comment and your support,

Michael

Micheal --

Today's NYT -- U.S. Acts to Spur Development of High-Tech Reactors
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/science/advanced-nuclear-reactors-department-of-energy.html?_r=0

TerraPower = Bill Gates  http://terrapower.com/ 
<p>

"As has been made clear by our Chairman (Bill Gates), greater energy R&D is vital to creating breakthrough ideas that solve our pressing energy challenges. Alongside the traveling wave reactor (TWR), TerraPower supports the continued exploration of other nuclear energy technologies." 2016-01-16

I do not believe nuclear is a global solution due to time and cost.

I will keep an open mind on the Breakthrough Energy Coalition for the moment, briefly. Time is not our ally.

Sorry about the format screw up. For some reason pasting directly to the comment section deletes the paragraph spacing. Going through the on site pasting operation does seem to solve this glitch.

Again:)) Hi Doug,

I agree with the 'time and cost' downside to Terrapower's approach and that we need a wide spectrum of sustainable energy (and water-nutrient) management options.

With that said, the 'once through fuel cycle' is probably the best design for fission reactors. I believe Terrapower's design may actually be an upgraded version of an old small scale military reactor used back in the late 60s and early 70s. In brief, fissionable material can get hot enough, at the minimal critical levels, to boil a good deal of water (no need for movable fuel rods). These old 'solid state' reactors were not much more than a buried small shipping container sized load of minimal critical fuel loads which were spaced just close enough to boil water. The only moving parts were the water valves. Even if the water valves was shut off, the fuel load was never in danger of going super critical as the fuel loads were fixed at a minimal critical distance from each other. Once the buried reactors were no longer needed, they were simply left buried. You may not find much about these old military designs on Wiki (go figure), yet NASA has used, and still is using, this type of 'solid state once through fuel cycle' technology (read 'The Martian' for more details).

What I read in your links that did worry me is the floating reactors which China is moving forward on. Floating reactors are not a new twist as Russia explored the concept a few decades ago as a way to power their Siberian coastal communities. The problem with the design concept is that it will add a great deal of heat to an already heat stressed marine environment. There is far more marine surface area going out of primary production (photosynthesis) than we are losing due to terrestrial desertfication and forest clear cutting combined.

Per NOAA: "The expansion of oligotrophic (lifeless) surface waters in the subtropical gyres appears to be directly linked to increasing temperatures. Warming of the gyres, whether induced by natural processes or human activities, strengthens vertical stratification of these open-ocean regions, reducing the likelihood that nutrient-rich deep waters will be transported into the surface layer where photosynthetic activity occurs. The expected result is lower rates of primary production in these waters, with cascading effects through higher levels of the food chain. Ocean models and other observations show warming and increased vertical stratification is occurring in all oceans, thus continued expansion of oligotrophic regions within the gyres is predicted."

In brief, the oceans are already absorbing up to 80% of the excess heat from AGW, which reduces primary production-CO2 utilization, and that increase in ocean temperature well not naturally dissipate for millennia. Reversing the warming of the oceans is actually our largest scale and most long term challenge in mitigating AGW. Floating reactor designs completely ignore this reality.

Dr. Susan Solomon illustrates and describes this issue of long term ocean warming in her presentation during " The Great Debate: CLIMATE CHANGE - Surviving The Future (OFFICIAL) - (Part 1/2)

I highly encourage everyone to watch the full 2 part debate and pay close attention to Dr. Solomon's input throughout the debate (she's clearly the adult in the room). Her opening statement in the second part of the debate sums up what most rational and reasonable folks wish to see as our global AGW mitigation technology strategy. 

She states: "I'm concerned that we not pick the winners too soon [...] That we let a thousand flowers bloom and see what various options turns out the best."

If I were to slap a AGW mitigation bumper sticker on my car, the above wisdom would be it!

Michael

We share historical perspective.  Waiting for a 1000 flowers to bloom means some will die unexamined. 

The heat of oxidizing carbon is multiplied 100,000 times by emitted atmospheric CO2.  I doubt floating reactors have that footprint.

Roger that on stagnate theromclines and nutrients.

I read "Under a Green Sky" by Peter Ward PhD Paleontologist,
about five mass extinctions from carbon dioxide emissions.

"First the world warms over short intervals of time because of a sudden
increase of carbon dioxide and methane, caused initially by the
formation of vast volcanic provinces called flood basalts.  The warmer
world affects ocean circulation systems and disrupts the position of the
conveyer currents.  Bottom waters begin to have warm,low-oxygen water
dumped into them.  Warming continues, and the decrease of
equator-to-pole temperature differences reduces ocean winds and surface
currents to a near standstill. Mixing of oxygenated surface waters with
deeper, and volumetrically increasing low-oxygen bottom waters
decreases, causing ever-shallower water to change from oxygenated to
anoxic. Finally, the bottom water is at depths where light can
penetrate, and the combination of low oxygen and light allows green
sulfur bacteria to expand in numbers and fill the low-oxygen shallows.
They live amid other bacteria that produce toxic amounts of hydrogen
sulfide, and the flux of this gas into the atmosphere is as much as
2,000 times what it is today.  The gas rises into the high atmosphere,
where it breaks down the ozone layer, and the subsequent increase of
ultraviolet radiation from the sun kills much of the photosynthetic
green plant phytoplankton. On its way up into the [green] sky, the
hydrogen sulfide also kills some plant and animal life, and the
combination of high heat and hydrogen sulfide creates a mass extinction
on land.  These are the greenhouse extinctions."

"No wind in the 120-degree morning heat, and no trees for shade. There
is some vegetation, but it is low, stunted, parched.  Of other life,
there seems little. A scorpion, a spider, winged flies, and among the
roots of the desert vegetation we see burrows of some sort of small
animals."

"Yet as sepulchral as the land is, it is the [purple] sea itself that is
most frightening.  Waves slowly lap on the quiet shore, slow-motion
waves with the consistency of gelatin. Most of the shoreline is
encrusted with rotting organic matter, silk-like swathes of bacterial
slick now putrefying under a blazing sun, while nearby shallows mounds
of similar mats can be seen growing up toward the sun's surface; they
are stromatolites."   pp. 137-138
 

Yes, a stratified ocean is known as a Canfield ocean and there have been rather recent localized medium scale yet related events of hydrogen sulfide released in such vast quantities that the local fish stock was killed off in mass which drove the population in-land in search of bush meat, to replace the fish,which in turn, triggered the militarization of boarders and a sharp increase in weapons in the area. In short, this one episode of short term and localized thermal stagnation of the local waters reverberated from the Namibian coast, the site of the out gassing, all the way to Somalia, where many of the weapons ended up being collected. Didn't do much for the 'bush meat' population either.

Now, imagine that scenario being played out throughout the tropical Asia, South and Central Amer. as well as up and down the African coast lines. This is not some sort of Sci-Fi giggle, it has happened on a global scale more than once, as you rightfully pointed out.

Michael