Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
I noted on the news that there is a new plan afoot to cool down the planet. This one supposedly has been given big money by none other than Bill Gates.
The plan involves a fleet of ships that supposedly look like this:
Figure 1. Artist’s conception of cloud-making ships. Of course, the first storm would flip this over immediately, but heck, it’s only a fantasy, so who cares? SOURCE
The web site claims that:
Bill Gates Announces Funding for Seawater-Spraying Cloud Machines
The machines, developed by a San Francisco-based research group called Silver Lining, turn seawater into tiny particles that can be shot up over 3,000 feet in the air. The particles increase the density of clouds by increasing the amount of nuclei contained within. Silver Lining’s floating machines can suck up ten tons of water per second.
What could possibly go wrong with such a brilliant plan?
First, as usual the hype in this seems to have vastly outpaced the reality. According to CBS News Tech Talk:
The machines, developed by a San Francisco-based research group called Silver Lining, turn seawater into tiny particles that can be shot up over 3,000 feet in the air. The particles increase the density of clouds by increasing the amount of nuclei contained within. Silver Lining’s floating machines can suck up ten tons of water per second. If all goes well, Silver Lining plans to test the process with 10 ships spread throughout 3800 square miles of ocean. Geoengineering, an umbrella phrase to describe techniques that would allow humans to prevent global warming by manipulating the Earth’s climate, has yet to result in any major projects.
However, this is just a quote from the same web site that showed the ship above. CBS Tech Talk goes on to say:
A PR representative from Edelman later sent me this note from Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution for Science: “Bill Gates made a grant to the University of Calgary to support research in possible unique solutions and responses to climate change. Administrating this research funding, David Keith of the University of Calgary and I made a grant to Armand Neukermanns for lab tests to investigate the technical feasibility of producing the fine seawater sprays required by the Latham cloud whitening proposal, one of many proposals for mitigating some of the adverse effects of climate change. This grant to Neukermanns is for lab tests only, not Silver Lining’s field trials.”
So Bill Gates isn’t funding the ships, and didn’t even decide to fund this particular fantasy, he just gave money to support research into “possible unique solutions”. Well, I’d say this one qualifies …
Next, after much searching I finally found the Silver Lining Project web site. It says on the home page:
The Silver Lining Project is a not-for-profit international scientific research collaboration to study the effects of particles (aerosols) on clouds, and the influence of these cloud effects on climate systems.
Well, that sure sounds impressive. Unfortunately, the web site is only four pages, and contains almost no information at all.
Intrigued, I emailed them at the address given on their web site, which is info(a)silverliningproj.org. I quickly got this reply:
Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists:
info@silverliningproj.org
The recipient’s e-mail address was not found in the recipient’s e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator.
Hmmmm … not a good sign, four page web site, email address is dead … but onwards, ever onwards. Let’s look at a few numbers here.
First, over the tropical oceans, the rainfall is typically on the order of a couple of metres per year. Per the info above, they are going to test the plan with one ship for every 380 square miles. A square mile is about 2.6 square km, or 2.6 million square metres. Three hundred eighty square miles is about a thousand square km. Two metres of rainfall in that area is about two billion tonnes of water …
They say their ships will suck up “ten tonnes of water per second”. That’s about a third of a billion tonnes per year. So if they run full-time, they will increase the amount of water in the air by about 15% … which of course means 15% more rain. I don’t know how folks in rainy zones will feel about a 15% increase in their rainfall, but I foresee legalarity in the future …
Next, how much fuel will this use? The basic equation for pumps is:
Water flow (in liters per second) = 5.43 x pump power (kilowatts) / pressure (bars)
So to pump 10,000 litres per second (neglecting efficiency losses) with a pressure of 3 bars (100 psi) will require about 5,500 kilowatts. This means about 50 million kilowatt-hours per year. Figuring around 0.3 litres of fuel per kilowatt-hour (again without inefficiencies), this means that each ship will burn about fifteen million litres of fuel per year, so call it maybe twenty five million litres per year including all of the inefficiencies plus some fuel to actually move the ship around the ocean. All of these numbers are very generous, it will likely take more fuel than that. But we’ll use them.
Next, the money to do this … ho, ho, ho …
You can buy a used fire fighting ship for about fifteen million dollars, but it will only pump about 0.8 tonnes/second. So a new ship to pump ten tonnes per second might cost on the order of say twenty million US dollars.
You’d need a crew of about twelve guys to run the ship 24/7. That’s three eight-hour shifts of four men per shift. On average they will likely cost about US$80,000 per year including food and benefits and miscellaneous, so that’s about a million per year.
Then we have fuel costs of say US$ 0.75 per litre, so there’s about ten million bucks per year there.
Another web site says:
A study commissioned by the Copenhagen Consensus Centre, a European think-tank, has estimated that a wind-powered fleet of 1,900 ships to cruise the world’s oceans, spraying sea water from towers to create and brighten clouds, could be built for $9 billion. The idea would be to operate most of the ships far offshore in the Pacific so they would not interfere with weather on land.
My numbers say $38 billion for the ships … and “wind-powered”? As a long time sailor, I can only say “get real” …
However, that’s just for the ships. Remember that we are talking about $11 million per ship for annual pumping fuel costs plus labour … which is an annual cost of another $20 billion dollars …
Finally, they say that they are going to test this using one ship per 380 square miles … and that they can blanket the world with 1,900 ships. That makes a total of around three quarters of a million square miles covered by the 1,900 ships.
The surface of the world ocean, however, is about 140 million square miles, so they will be covering about half a percent of the world ocean with the 1,900 ships. Half a percent. If that were all in the Pacific Ocean per the citation above, here’s how much it would cover:
Figure 2. Area covered by 1,900 cloud making ships.
Yeah, brightening that would make a huge difference, especially considering half of the time it wouldn’t even see the sun …
See, my problem is that I’m a practical guy, and I’ve spent a good chunk of my life working with machinery around the ocean. Which is why I don’t have a lot of time for “think-tanks” and “research groups”. Before I start a project, I do a back-of-the-envelope calculation to see if it makes sense.
My calculations show that this will cost forty billion dollars to start, and twenty billion per year to run, not counting things like ship maintenance and redundancy and emergencies and machinery replacement and insurance and a fleet of tankers to refuel the pump ships at sea and, and, and …
And for all of that, we may make a slight difference on half a percent of the ocean surface. Even if I’ve overestimated the costs by 100% (always possible, although things usually cost more than estimated rather than less), that’s a huge amount of money for a change too small to measure on a global scale.
Now Bill Gates is a smart guy. But on this one, I think he may have let his heart rule his head. One of the web sites quoted above closes by saying:
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation did not respond to requests for comment on Tuesday, nor did U.S. entrepreneur Kelly Wanser, who is leading the Silver Lining Project.
Smart move … what we have here is a non-viable non-solution to a non-problem. I wouldn’t want to comment either, especially since this non-solution will burn about 27 billion litres (about 7 billion US gallons) of fuel per year to supposedly “solve” the problem supposedly caused by CO2 from burning fuel …
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Did anyone calculate how much additional CO2 will be produced by homes that have to run their heaters longer when they further cool the planet? Does this end up being a zero-sum gain?
Blimey, in which season would you want to do a thing like? it would make so much difference.
But I thought water vapor was a GHG? So this would actually warm the planet.
Why don’t they just create fake clouds by utilizing the commercial airline industry.
Hey, now that’s brilliant!!!
We already have thousands of ships covering the globe daily making clouds. They are called jets. Yes, those clouds do have an effect on radiative heat transfer. On 911 when they did not fly, the day/night temperature difference increased 1.1 degree C. Clouds block incoming radiation from the sun and also block outgoing radiation from the earth. I believe the net effect is insignificant.
Ha ha ha CodeTech. Just read your comment. Seems like we’re on the same page here.
@Drew. Good luck with that. The greenies in power do not care about renewables or nuclear. They know we will burn fossil fuels until they are no more. They aren’t going to start selling carbon permits, or start making money in the carbon markets, only to voluntarily make those revenues and profits disappear “in the name of the environment.”
Some people here appear to have money invested in this project…
Bill Gates chucks cash at climate cooling cloud creator $7bn nautical chill pills
It would actually be more cost effective to find a tall mountain next to the ocean, pump seawater to the top of that, and blast it into the atomosphere from there (Hawaii comes to mind as a possible perch); most mountains I know are already at 3,000 ft. elevation. There’d be a whole lot of energy saved by transporting water as a liquid in a pipeline uphill rather than trying to squirt it any distance upwards through the air. Of course, the leeward side of the fountain mountain would likely be desolate due to salt dropout (not much grows in seawater), but that’s a minor sacrifice. And if one mountain isn’t enough, a whole range would work, like the Cascades or the Sierras (not many people live east of those ranges). It might even help replenish the salt that’s being removed from the Great Basin’s Great Salt Lake. Or put the seawater sprayers just west of Death Valley. Lots of more realistic options rather than having a bunch of ships out in the ocean wasting so much energy.
An Inquirer says:
May 12, 2010 at 7:18 am
“Interesting that no one has commented on how fish, etc. would be affected by this proposal.
And, yes, while clouds do have an albeldo effect, but some clouds also keep the surface temperature warmer at night.
And more heat-trapping water vapor in the air . . . mmmmmmmm . . .”
Now here’s an idea. Fish are very shiny. Fill the sky with them and that’ll increase the global albedo… Maybe we could get them to lie on their backs…
So wait, I skimmed David Schnare’s linked article and all it seems to talk about is the potential effect of anthropogenic clouds on Earth albedo. I’m having a hard time finding the schematics and engineering drawings to show that these mythical ships designed to accomplish that task could actually be built and would work.
It’s difference between discussing the mineral richness of Saturn’s rings and actually mining Saturn’s rings.
I can just see the error message now “General Earth Fault: Please re-run the Big Bang…”
What a plot for a disaster movie! Scientists mutate into rabid spanner monkey Earth-last-ers, battling for a contract from the man with the wad, then unleashed into action. It all goes horribly wrong when then excess cloud cover causes RUNAWAY GLOBAL WARMING. Hollywood on your doorstep?
Ridiculous. They’ll end up destroying plant and marine life that requires sunlight and lower temperatures, which kills FAR more than a poxy 1C warming does.
On operating costs: 3000 feet of lift is more like 1300 psi (not 100) – discounting levitation. So fuel costs (ignoring transporation) are understimated by 13X
On ship (capital) costs: (10/0.8)^0.6 * 15 = 68, so capital costs are underestimated by about 3.5X – assuming ship costs is dominated by the water spraying gear.
just saying
Mozilla betook me browser to:
UN Ban Moon’s whine list: “wants”, “wants”, “wants” “in earnest”.
“An advisory panel has told Harper to play down climate change at the G20.”
Go see Ban’s waggy finger.
Moon’s “want” list is Moon’s whine list.
…-
“Put environment on G20 agenda, UN chief tells Harper
United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon delivers a speech at the Chateau Laurier in Ottawa on Wednesday May 12, 2010. The Canadian Press
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon says Canada has essential role to play in fighting climate change”
“UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon wants climate change on the agenda in earnest when Canada hosts the G20 summit next month in Toronto.
He also wants Canada to live up to the greenhouse-gas reduction targets it negotiated under the Kyoto Protocol.
And Mr. Ban wants the prime minister to work the phones with his fellow G8 leaders to persuade them to live up to their previous aid commitments to poor countries.”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/g8-g20/news/put-environment-on-g20-agenda-un-chief-tells-harper/article1566211/
The Blue Screen of Death – a Clear Sky!
The few times I have been at the Gulf of Mexico, I was impressed by the haze. The only time I could see very far out to sea was first thing in the morning. The wind seems to blow at a good clip, and evaporation and spray got the air full of moisture quickly. I also noticed abundant cumulus clouds reaching very high. I think natural systems can take care of the climate very well, and even if our increasing CO2 contribution brings the temperature up a bit, the existing system will equilibrate at no cost. Attempts at geoengineering will undoubtedly be costly and most likely ineffective.
“The idea would be to operate most of the ships far offshore in the Pacific so they would not interfere with weather on land.”
What an absurd statement that is.
David Schnare says:
May 12, 2010 at 8:37 am
This is the first time I’ve been disappointed by this blog.
Humor is fine. Failing to do your homework to know whether the idea deserves the humor is not.
The idea definitely deserves the scorn it is getting, and more. There is not a single positive outcome that can come from it. There’s a saying; if it ain’t broke, don’t “fix” it. Perhaps you’ve heard of it? The climate is doing just fine, thank you very much. Trying to mess with it is a fools errand, and an expensive one, with actual negative consequences very likely.
Interesting. We know from the feedback debate that clouds cool during the sunshine of day while warming during night times. Therefore climate modelers should be able to tell us the optimal timing and placement of these floating contraptions. Since at the equator the sun shines close to 12 hours a day – meaning half cooling and half warming, a poleward placement where days are longest may be optimal. But then again, at high latitudes the sun is less direct and so the optimal spot to generate clouds might be nearer the equator where the sun is stronger . These seem to be the kind of tradeoffs that engineers typically analyze when they attack design problems. I would say that if the various climate models cannot give consistent answers to this question then the models flunk.
I also often wonder if these climate models that are used to predict global warming are able to tell us anything about cloud patterns – day versus night, ocean versus continent, and high versus low latitudes. I suspect that they can’t. If a climate model is useful for telling us only one thing – future temperature. I would suggest that the models are not at all robust and that calling them “climate models” is a misnomer since they are really only temperature models. A true climate model should be able to replicate and make all kinds of climatic predictions beyond temperature. Such as: humidities, pressures, precipitation patterns, wind patterns, diurnal patterns, seasonal patterns, cloudiness, additionally it should not only replicate averages but it should be able to predict distribution and extremes around the the averages. If the models don’t replicate such things ….. it’s a travesty that they don’t.
Michael D Smith says:
May 12, 2010 at 4:45 am
Yeah, you’re right … like I said, “things usually cost more than estimated rather than less”, funny how life is asymmetrical that way.
This “precautionary principle” BS blows up in your face, more often than not.
As an old-dog environmental scientist, I recall the vast uproar over asbestos in the mid-1980’s. Of course, federal and local EPAs decided that all asbestos everywhere had to be ripped out ASAP and disposed of.
Problem was, removing the asbestos disrupted it, causing an even bigger public health menace than just leaving it alone. Also, the regulators soon discovered that disposal options were limited.
So, they punted & went for “encapsulation,” wherein the asbestos is just frozen into place with various technologies.
Never forget Hippocrates….”First, do no harm.” Before I’d sign off on any stupid geoengineering, I’d want to see years of reliable temperature data, evidence of ocean acidification, and proof that this is justifiable from a cost and public health standpoint. I doubt that the worse-case scenarios of Hansen (runaway Venus effect) are even possible.
I like this paragraph:
“Smart move … what we have here is a non-viable non-solution to a non-problem. I wouldn’t want to comment either, especially since this non-solution will burn about 27 billion litres (about 7 billion US gallons) of fuel per year to supposedly “solve” the problem supposedly caused by CO2 from burning fuel …”
And how much more fuel will we burn here in Michigan (and other northern parts of the world) to keep us warm with the decreased temps in the winter from blocking what little sun we get then. I have been waiting for the lower winter heating bills that should come with promises of “global warming”. So far the past several years we have had to fire up our “CO2 generating equipment” (aka furnaces) a lot more than we used to.
I too am very disappointed at the lack of critical thought in both the article, which sets up strawman hypotheses and goes on to refute them and ridicule them, and with the readers, who have been provided with serious and rational links by myself and others, as the one by Stephen Salter below, which does describe the ingenious method of increasing albedo non destructively.
http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Phil.Trans.%20Seagoing%20hardware.pdf ,
This proposal just changes the albedo while it is working and reverts to normal when it stops. In contrast to the sorcerer’s apprentice other methods offered for geoengineering, from sulfur in the sky to iron in the oceans.
It should be supported by skeptics as a second line of defense and as an alternative to the idiotic cap and trade stuff being rammed down our throats.
Those of you who know me on this board, know that I am convinced by the data that the warming observed is natural, not man made. Nevertheless, the countries of the world do not listen to skeptics and are ready to tie up trillions and destroy the western way of life on the assumption that the slight heating observed is due to CO2 increases.
This project is ingenious and the construction of a test ship should be supported, and not ridiculed. It offers great savings both in money and in a way of life, supposing that AGW were true. By the time one ship is built and tested the PDO etc cycles will probably convince everybody that there is no great heating going on, and the project can stop, though the idea to have a station self propelled and with little energy expenditure roaming the oceans is also useful, if demonstrated to work.
The Flettner rotors are already in use:
http://www.enercon.de/www/en/windblatt.nsf/vwAnzeige/4DA5AEEBACEAEDFDC12574A500418221/$FILE/WB-0308-en.pdf
The important thing is it is nondestructive and its effects easily stopped.