A Clever But Questionable Approach to Geoengineering

MIT's David Keith says it could be cheaper and easier to stop global warming than you think

2 min read
A Clever But Questionable Approach to Geoengineering

Technology Review editor David Rotman has an unusually reader-friendly article in the issue just out  on what goes by the name, loosely, of "geoengineering"—deliberate efforts to modify earth's atmosphere to counteract the effects of greenhouse gases. In the March issue, Rotman profiles MIT scientist David Keith, a former atomic physicist, and his idea of injecting sulfuric acid into the upper atmosphere, where the sulfur aerosols would reflect incoming solar radiation back into space.

"One of the startling things about Keith's proposal," writes Rotman, "is just how little sulfur would be required. A few grams of it in the atmosphere will offset the warming caused by a ton of carbon dioxide, according to his estimate."

The idea of pumping sulfate aerosols into the atmosphere is not new as such. What does seem novel in Keith's scheme, however, is the disarmingly simply method he proposes for putting them there: Customize standard Gulfstream business jets and have them fly 20 kilometers up to disperse sulfuric acid, which will combine with water to form the reflective sulfate aerosols.

What's not to like in this scenario? The main objections are just those that my fellow energy blogger David Levitan has identified in this space: The impossibility of accurately predicting what the regional impacts of the sulfur pumping would be, and the complete absence of any understanding of its impact on ocean acidification, one of the most serious consequences of carbon dioxide buildup. "It's not possible to use existing models to know how geoengineering might affect, say, India's monsoons or precipitation in such drought-prone areas as northern Africa," Rotman concedes in the end.

For balance, Technology Review also has in its current issue an excellent short commentary piece that makes the case for energy conservation and efficiency (an editorial strategy Scientific American also has adopted when addressing the delicate subject of geoengineering). It won't be enough to just keep trying to marginally reduce our immense greenhouse gas emissions, writes Jane Long, who chairs a California future energy committee and co-chairs the Bipartisan Policy Center's geoengineering task force. "Our first step should be to to commit to never building another energy-inefficient city, building, vehicle, or industry."

Image: Don Bayley/iStockphoto

The Conversation (0)
This photograph shows a car with the words “We Drive Solar” on the door, connected to a charging station. A windmill can be seen in the background.

The Dutch city of Utrecht is embracing vehicle-to-grid technology, an example of which is shown here—an EV connected to a bidirectional charger. The historic Rijn en Zon windmill provides a fitting background for this scene.

We Drive Solar

Hundreds of charging stations for electric vehicles dot Utrecht’s urban landscape in the Netherlands like little electric mushrooms. Unlike those you may have grown accustomed to seeing, many of these stations don’t just charge electric cars—they can also send power from vehicle batteries to the local utility grid for use by homes and businesses.

Debates over the feasibility and value of such vehicle-to-grid technology go back decades. Those arguments are not yet settled. But big automakers like Volkswagen, Nissan, and Hyundai have moved to produce the kinds of cars that can use such bidirectional chargers—alongside similar vehicle-to-home technology, whereby your car can power your house, say, during a blackout, as promoted by Ford with its new F-150 Lightning. Given the rapid uptake of electric vehicles, many people are thinking hard about how to make the best use of all that rolling battery power.

Keep Reading ↓Show less