Reversing global warming and removing carbon from the atmosphere with cold fusion

I have discussed these topics from time to time. I am preparing a talk on them. I propose to stop global warming using cold fusion in two steps:

1. Stop emitting carbon dioxide by using cold fusion energy.
2. Remove excess carbon from the atmosphere by growing billions of trees. When they are old, cut them down and bury them underground in abandoned open-pit coal mines.

Item 2, reforestation to sequester carbon, has been suggested by many experts. I have taken their ideas and shown how the project can be enhanced with cold fusion. I cannot fit the following into the talk, but here are three interesting things I have learned in the last few years.

1. The experts do not agree how much carbon this could be removed from the atmosphere with this method. The experts also do not agree whether old-growth forests continue to sequester carbon or not. Some say that leaves on large, mature trees sequester a great deal of carbon. Others disagree. Quote:

“[W]hether carbon accumulation continues or peaks when net additional wood growth is minimal (in “old-growth” forests) is disputed.”

- Gorte, R.W., U.S. Tree Planting for Carbon Sequestation. 2009, U.S. Congress: Congressional Research Service.

Here are some recent articles about carbon sequestration by reforestation. I have highlighted some disagreements among experts, and some aspects of the project that cold fusion would enhance.

2. If reforestation cannot be done quickly enough to forestall global warming, some experts say that we can reduce global warming by painting roofs white, or using white shingles. One expert said that will not work because the light reflected from the roof bounces off of particles in the air and ends up heating the air just as much, although he granted that it does keep the house cooler. He missed an important point. In the first world, air conditioning is widely used, so keeping the house cooler would reduce energy consumption significantly.

Global warming can also be forestalled by putting gigantic mylar sunshades in low earth orbit. This would be millions of times cheaper than moving cities or building seawalls. They will eventually erode or fall out of orbit but by that time we should have the problem fixed. The mass of mylar is not as great as you might think. You have to intercept 2% to 4% of sunlight. It would be a bad idea to do this permanently. It might change the ecosystem. However, sunshades that last 50 years while we remediate global warming would be okay I think.

How a giant space umbrella could stop global warming

Our rapidly warming world could cause serious problems for civilisation in the decades to come. But could a giant space umbrella help cool down our planet?…

www.bbc.com

3. Dave Nagel has been talking about some of the proposed methods to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and sequester it. These involve large machines and chemical processes. I think this is a bad idea. I strongly favor growing trees instead. For the following reasons:

CO2 removal also removes the oxygen. We need the oxygen. Someone computed that if we were to burn all the remaining coal, oxygen would be severely depleted. Photosynthesis separates and releases the oxygen. I do not know whether there are any proposed mechanical or chemical methods of separating oxygen but I am sure photosynthesis works well.

Any method that depends upon machines would require massive amounts of equipment that would have to be sustained for 100 to 200 years. Whereas, as I described, planting trees would require only a modest amount of equipment, mainly desalination plants that would no longer be needed after fifty years, because natural rainfall would increase. Cold fusion energy is much cheaper than any other source but even cold fusion costs something. Whereas solar energy used to grow trees costs nothing.

CO2 removal has no benefit other than avoiding global warming. It has no ancillary profits. Whereas growing trees produces enormous profits as I described. People like trees. People would like to see deserts the size of the United States converted back into verdant land. The market value of that land would be approximately $23 trillion:

https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Todays_Reports/reports/land0820.pdf

The cost of producing this land by reversing desertification would be a tiny fraction of that. It should be done even if we did not have a problem with carbon in the atmosphere. As it happens this method not only removes carbon but it also produces fantastic economic benefits.

Quote from orsova

This might be of interest:

https://greshamhouse.com/wp-co…020/07/GHGTO2020FINAL.pdf

That's very helpful!

I am trying to figure out how many tons of wood are harvested, and how much carbon there is in it. There is lot of water in wood. The main component of wood is lignocellulose, which has a specific gravity of 1500 kg/m3. So it is heavier than water. Yet most kinds of wood float in water. So it has a lot of air, like a sponge. See:

Calculating the Green Weight of Wood Species

How much does wood weigh? The question is simple enough for dry wood, but more difficult to when freshly cut.

extension.psu.edu

Quote from Gennadiy Tarassenko

Coal is not formed from trees, grass, swamps, coal is formed due to cold nuclear fusion from oil!

That is not what most experts believe. But, in any case, I have often seen coal that has plant leaves and other shapes from wood in it. It sure looks like fossilized wood to me. I do not think you would see that in coal if it were formed from oil.

Quote from Shane D.

Where do you intend giving this presentation?

ICCF-24 Short Course

Quote from Shane D.

Well, I guess since this is about garden variety warming of the climate, and not manmade GW, we are not really talking about global warming per se.

That is the only kind of global warming now occurring, as far as I know. There is no natural trend toward higher temperatures. There has never been any trend as rapid as this in the history of planet. Except, I suppose, the day 65 million years ago when the KT-Boundary Impact asteroid whacked into earth.

Earth Temperature Timeline

alan smith wrote:

Quote

Reversing GW is a complex business, and some of your proposed solutions are a too simple.

Yes, I have oversimplified because this is a short presentation.

Quote

For a start, trees need water, but desalination as presently practised is not the answer. In Chile and more particularly in the Arabian Gulf the highly concentrated brine discharged from desalinators is damaging marine ecosystems.

Surely that problem can be fixed, by spreading out the brine somehow. Or by taking most of the water from the ocean. Desalinated water can add salt to the soil if desalination is done wrong. That is not a problem in Israel.

In recent years, the focus has shifted from desalinating ocean water to decontaminating and reusing freshwater. That is, using the same water over and over again in cities and factories. Also, in desalinating briny water in estuaries, where the salt content is lower.

LA recently rejected a proposal to build a new desalination plant, for various reasons. But LA has made good progress in recent decades conserving water.

California Coastal Commission rejects plan for Poseidon desalination plant

After hours of intense debate Thursday, coastal regulators have rejected Poseidon Water's proposal to build a desalination plant in Huntington Beach.

www.latimes.com

Quote

The Gulf - which is pretty much landlocked is 10% more salty than it was a decade ago . . .

Not the right place to desalinate!

Quote

, a situation aggravated because the river systems that run into it - the Euprates/ShattAl-Arab have been dammed upstream for hydro power upstream and sucked dry by irrigation and drinking water projects nearer the sea. This is a real problem.

That should be fixed by using the same water again and again. That would be a lot easier, cheaper and more hygienic with cold fusion.

Quote

Also planting trees in the snowy north changes the albedo of the ground making for more absorbed energy and higher winter temperatures.

They should only be planted where they used to be, in places like Scotland.

The New York Times today has an article about this very subject:

Opinion | Let’s Not Pretend Planting Trees Is a Permanent Climate Solution

Carbon emissions are forever so carbon removal should be, too.

www.nytimes.com

QUOTE:

Let’s Not Pretend Planting Trees Is a Permanent Climate Solution

. . . Planting trees and protecting forests are a major part of many corporate efforts to offset emissions.

But there’s a catch. Carbon dioxide removed from the atmosphere is only temporarily stored in trees, vegetation and soil, while a sizable part of our emissions today, will remain in the atmosphere, much of it for centuries and some of it for millenniums to come.

Trees can quickly and cost-effectively remove carbon from the atmosphere today. But when companies rely on them to offset their emissions, they risk merely hitting the climate “snooze” button, kicking the can to future generations who will have to deal with those emissions. . . .

END QUOTE

The author's point relates to the "natural boom and bust cycle of forest carbon." Most carbon does not stay in trees. Eventually, they burn, or they die and decompose, and the carbon returns to the atmosphere. That is why the author calls this a "snooze button." Of course he is right, but he and other experts do not consider my plan to bury the carbon, permanently removing it.

Obviously, the author also does not consider the other possibilities that cold fusion would open up, such as irrigating 10 million square kilometers of desert land. The author, along with nearly every other scientist and environmentalist, has probably never heard of cold fusion. Or he vaguely recalls it and assumes it was a mistake.

The author's estimates are in line with other conservative estimates that I have read.

With oak and other long-lived trees, the "snooze button" would last for hundreds of years, giving us plenty of time to remove and bury wood. If there is a very large area of new forests holding lots of carbon for 300 years, until the oak trees start to die, the project can last 300 years instead of 100 years. We might bury only 5 billion tons per year, instead of 15 billion tons. This would cost much less, because robots, cold fusion, and other technology will be far cheaper in 200 or 300 years.

• Quote

  Quote from Dr Richard* I just don't understand why so much emphasis is put on CO² being the prime factor causing GW. There are many more factors at play here. Sure I believe re-forestation and restoring natural habitats and conservation are important, but the whole CO² belief has become like a religion, out of control. Can't we put it scientifically back into perspective?
  

I am sure you do understand why "so much emphasis is put on CO2." It is because the vast majority of experts say CO2 is the cause of global warming, and there are no other significant factors. Apparently you disagree. That is fine, but you should not pretend that others agree with you. You should not pretend you don't understand, or you are surprised. Just say "the experts are wrong and we should put more emphasis on other factors, even though experts think there are no other factors."

What you say is close to disingenuous. You are pretending you do not understand. It is as if I were to say, "I cannot understand why the DoE experts do not agree to develop cold fusion." Of course I understand! They have made their reasons abundantly clear. They and most others think cold fusion is a mistake, fraud or lunacy.

Here is an illustration of the "natural boom and bust cycle of forest carbon" from the USDA: