Columbia Basin Project here in Eastern Washington; Imperial Valley in California; Israel and Egypt.
Labels without explanation or even context.
Len Ornstein's goal is to sequester carbon, not make money.
If you are trying to sequester carbon, the effort/energy/labor required is VERY relevant.
Actually read the full paper plus learn some desert sylviculture before critizing.
What I see is the insistence on creating forests out of sterile sand, by desalinating seawater (which requires on-going effort) to pull out carbon that requires said desalination effort to continue even as the carbon store ceases to rise and reaches a peak.
Post by David B. Benson on Jul 6, 2019 13:05:41 GMT 9.5
Obviously, those are places with irrigated agriculture, including trees.
Little of the Sahara is just sand; that trees will grow is illustrated by the Siwa oasis, with palm trees farther than the eye can see. Knowing some of the prehistory of the Sahara helps; several thousand years ago there were mangrove swamps with even infant whales.
Even without irrigation the Negev desert of Israel sports acacias, the nitrogen fixers of the arid lands.
As for the costs, read the paper before claiming impossibility.
Post by David B. Benson on Jul 8, 2019 19:27:02 GMT 9.5
Climate Emergency: Reforestation is no Substitute for Leaving Fossil Fuels in the Ground Mark Maslin 2019 Jul 07 The Conversation
Well, nobody stated that it was. This opinion from a University College London don has more sensible commentary about "trillions of trees" than the headline suggests. Others have made similar comments.
My reaction is "plant even more trees, use the Sahara and Australian outback."
Post by David B. Benson on Jul 19, 2019 21:52:50 GMT 9.5
Using the figures from the James Conca article, 122,483 Nuscale modules plus RO units appear to suffice to provide the desalinated irrigation water for a trillion trees in the Sahara or, I presume, the Australian outback, assuming but 10 gallons per tree per day. More is required to provide the electricity for pumping. I assume water vapor in pipes for the pumping. I don't know how to estimate the cost of piping and other infrastructure.
Still, so many Nuscale modules might be installed for but $150m each; that's $20 trillion to desalinate. Assuming total capital costs are 2 times that, I find $40 per tree; plus of course ongoing expenses. Affordable, the EROEI paper referenced above claims.
Edited to correct the decimal points, as noticed by Huon in the subsequent post
Edited to add that the trees would actually receive about 20 gallons per day once the induced rains set in. The density is 1000+ trees/ha, mostly filling the Sahara. The annual costs are $2trn so after 80 years,the lifetime of the equipment, each tree has cost an estimated $200.
Hi, DBB-- Conca quotes the price of a NuScale plant as $1,800 million or $150m per module (see table). And Ornstein in this Guardian article gives the price for the afforestation plan as $1.7 trillion a year $1.9 trillion a year.
(DBB, yes, my turn to correct a silly error: the $200 billion discrepancy you slyly note in the next comment.)
Post by David B. Benson on Jul 20, 2019 10:34:15 GMT 9.5
Huon, The Guardian made a decimal point error. I suppose the ongoing expenses that I see might add to $200 billion by paying more people than strictly necessary. But even if somehow The Guardian is right that is still on the scale of the US DoD.
A take on the non-irrigated article. However, the headline is wrong. It is still necessary to stop using fossil fuels as rapidly as possible. Tree planting is a clean up operation to remove the excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, restoring something like the Holocene climate.
is right in that Amazon deforestation is a bad thing. However, paleoclimate data indicates that, following David Archer's "The Long Thaw", it would recover within 100,000 years. Better to stop and not wait so long.