Climate Solution Methods

INTRODUCTION

   Search Words:   Any:     All:         
Advanced Search
(Click a down arrow to see a short description of the method or click on the method in a colored cell to see a detailed description of the method.)
ScoreMethodsReferences
47Atmospheric Vortex Engines (AVE)

AVEs are machines designed controllably to concentrate warm, preferably moist, air into 'twisters' that provide conduits for heat and moisture to rise faster than otherwise, thereby cooling and watering the planet.
73Bright Water

Reflecting microbubbles generated in either sea or freshwater can be used to increase cooling albedo or to reduce water loss through evaporation.
87Buoyant Flakes

Disseminating long-lived, ultra-slow-release, Buoyant Flakes carrying supplementary nutrients over the ocean surface mirrors what good farmers do on land. The flakes are made mainly from plentiful natural and waste materials using simple baking technology. They are designed to provide the iron, phosphate, silica and trace elements most needed by phytoplankton and seaweed to flourish.
View
49Climate Photocatalyst with powdered salts

The method mimics the effect of tropospheric loess dust on airborne pollutants.
View
61Fiztops

A Fiztop (a top-shaped producer of fizzy bubbles) is a floating, lightweight, solar-powered unit designed to generate long-lived, reflective nanobubbles in the sea surface microlayer (SSML).
View
Forests and Plants

View
57Ice Shields/ISA

In colder seasons, sea ice can be thickened by pumping seawater onto it in calibrated gushes so that it: forms semi-permanent, above and below ice polar habitat; enhances albedo; may stably ground the new ice arrays; stabilises coastlines, glaciers and the polar vortex; reduces or converts ebullient methane emissions; increases snowfall and off-planet heat radiation; and sequesters carbon dioxide and oxygen gases in the deep.
View
63Marine Permaculture Arrays (MPA)

MPAs and their infrastructure are designed to bring cooling and nutrients so that kelp can be grown and harvested in most cool and temperate waters, often far from land.
View
55Salter Spray Ship (SSS)

Wind-powered Salter Spray Ships are used to generate cloud condensing nuclei (CCN) designed to thicken marine cloud, thus cooling both the ocean surface waters and the atmosphere.
View
67Sea Plough

Seawater moving through a submerged pipe conducts cool, nutrient-rich water diagonally upwards where it is useful to photosynthetic organisms. Whilst still conceptual, marine engineering is currently being carried out by the Australian Maritime College.
69Seatomisers/ISA

Floating Seatomiser masts use wind turbine energy to spray seawater droplets of specific size ranges into the lower troposphere. Commercial spray nozzles are modified to work at higher tri-phasic pressures and to produce droplets for different purposes: coarse and medium sized ones to humidify air at different wind speeds, and baffle-conditioned, fine ones from flat fan spray nozzles to generate evaporating droplets that nucleate marine cloud and/or create sea salt aerosols (SSA).
View
55Seaweed Glider

Seaweed Gliders capitalise on the reliability of ocean currents to vertically navigate between the surface and the deep on a daily basis to maximise absorption of sunlight and cool deep nutrients. The device is automatically steered up and down in the water column by a non motorised steering wing which tows a large harvestable kelp array. Depending on the temperature of the water, weather conditions and solar flux, the device can be set at the optimum depth to promote both growth and protect the device. Seaweed Gliders could tap into the unlimited power of ocean currents like the East Australian Current (EAC).
57Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) of SO2 by aircraft

Aircraft designed to disseminate sulphur dioxide gas into the stratosphere, aerosols from which would cool the world by reflecting a portion of sunlight from it.
Comments/Questions (0)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AVEs are machines designed controllably to concentrate warm, preferably moist, air into 'twisters' that provide conduits for heat and moisture to rise faster than otherwise, thereby cooling and watering the planet.
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
Develop-
ment Status
Net Cooling Status Net Carbon Status Feasib-
ility
Effect-
iveness
Scal-
ability
Time-
liness
Gating/ Reversi-
bility
Risk Gover-
nance & Social Accept-
ance
Cost SCORE, sum D:L
3 3 1 3 1 3 3 9 9 9 3 47
This resembles the commonly-used Technical Readiness Level (TRL) classification system, but has three levels, not nine. Moreover, as it will typically include the consideration of several technologies, concepts and information thought useful for the Method, these are rolled into a single, overall measure of technical readiness.
This provides an indication of what is the individual Method’s potential contribution to global cooling at its maximum feasible scale. Its typical measurement unit would be negative watts per square metre (-W/m2).
This roughly coincides with the number of gigatonnes of carbon (GtC/yr) that the Method could be expected to sequester at its maximum scale, from the atmosphere, for a period equal to or greater than a century. GtC for a fraction of a century are reduced by that fraction. For simplicity, the criterion omits consideration of other important greenhouse gases (such as methane) and airborne particulates. A red score indicates a value <1, yellow 1-5, green >5 GtC/yr.
This is a composite measure indicating how achievable is the negative Net Radiative Forcing (equals Global Cooling) that combines the effects of Solar Radiation Management (SRM), or Earthly albedo enhancement, and Thermal Radiation Management (TRM) measures designed to increase heat (long wave) radiation off-planet when the Method is deployed at maximum feasible scale. Where quantitative estimates or surrogates are unavailable, qualitative estimates are made.
This is the likely Cost-Effectiveness of the Method. When it can be quantified, it is an estimate of the current US dollar cost per negative watts per square metre ($/(-W/m2)) or the Net Negative Radiative Forcing of all the cooling effects of the Method, wherever they occur on the planet above the base of the marine mixed layer. Provisionally, Red might be >$10a, Yellow $1-10a, and Green <$1a/(-W/m2), where “a” is an appropriate factor changed to reflect the actual likely range of costs. If not readily quantified, then qualitative estimates or guesses are to be made.
Scalability has several different parameters or components, any of which may be or become limiting. One component of scalability is the proportion of the world’s surface or volume that can be used to deploy it. A second is whether there is/could be sufficient raw materials/chemicals, concentrations, available energy, temperature, pressure, space or habitat, and manufacturing capability to deploy it at optimum scale in a useful timeframe. A third is whether the species, diversity and biomass of them are, or could be made sufficient, and sufficiently capable, to carry out their part in the Method. This includes humanity, its robotic helpers, laws/regulations, agreements/conventions, finances, and politicosocioeconomic practices. A fourth is whether there is, or could be constructed, whatever is required in the way of software, AI/algorithms, datastores, supporting technologies, and communications necessary for optimal scalability. A fifth is a requirement for modicum of peace&security, health, civil order, and cooperation needed for the scalability to be achieved and maintained, together with limits to food, environmental and social stresses in key populations.
This relates to how quickly the Method could be researched, developed, deployed globally, and take substantial effect - noting that many Methods will typically have some effects, both positive and negative, that are delayed by years or longer. Initially, and for a crash or moonshot program (though with existential urgency, funding, and possibly widespread participation), a Green score might have a strongly, net beneficial effect by the deployed Method occurring in <5 years, Yellow in 5-25 years, and Red in >25 years. GATING/REVERSIBILITY: Gating is whether the Method can be tested at increasing scale, whilst learning by doing to address adverse effects or cost. Reversibility relates to whether, and how quickly, a trial can be stopped and/or its effects reversed. Reversibility might be scored thus. Major adverse effects cease or substantially decline within: Green <1 month, Yellow 1- 12 months, Red >1 year.
Gating is whether the Method can be tested at increasing scale, whilst learning by doing to address adverse effects or cost. Reversibility relates to whether, and how quickly, a trial can be stopped and/or its effects reversed. Reversibility might be scored thus. Major adverse effects cease or substantially decline within: Green <1 month, Yellow 1- 12 months, Red >1 year.
Risk is used in the Risk Management or risk impact assessment sense of being compared to what would be likely to happen without the intervention. It deals with probabilities and consequences of risk events if they are realised. It compares the products of the likelihood of the risk occurring within a given time (meaning perhaps millennia for climate risks) and its impact. As climate risk is now an existential one that is now happening, our interest lies in determining quickly which Methods have acceptable risks and ones which do not risk the social acceptance of most other interventions. Green means start gated testing urgently now, Yellow means seek ways to reduce likely adverse aspects, Red means research now, but do not deploy more widely unless equivalent Methods are insufficiently effective at cooling.
This refers to the likelihood that existing forms of governance can be enhanced to satisfy the bulk of the global community of the necessity to deploy the more prospective of the Methods, first at local, then national and then international levels. Extensive community engagement is likely to be required, following proof of concept, and explanations of its likely costs, opportunities and effects. Green = (eventually) potentially acceptable and with little downside, Yellow = has some modest downsides, most of which can be offset. Red = social acceptance is unlikely unless other, comparable Methods fail.
As the Effectiveness criterion refers to the developed and globally-scaled cost of direct cooling by the Method in question, this Cost refers more to the RD&D and capital costs of researching, then deploying it at different scales and in different variants, together with the costs of Measuring, Reporting and Verifying (MRV) the results of using the Method, probably by independent bodies. It also includes insurance and recompense costs and the likely cleanup costs afterwards, together with reductions for any revenues gained, including possible carbon and cooling credits, should they eventuate. Green = likely to be profitable, Yellow = requires modest subsidies for industry and NGO participation, Red = would require extensive and ongoing public subsidy. Source TBD.
A summation of the above scores, using Red = 1, Yellow = 3, and Green = 9. Total possible = 99.
Reflecting microbubbles generated in either sea or freshwater can be used to increase cooling albedo or to reduce water loss through evaporation.
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
Develop-
ment Status
Net Cooling Status Net Carbon Status Feasib-
ility
Effect-
iveness
Scal-
ability
Time-
liness
Gating/ Reversi-
bility
Risk Gover-
nance & Social Accept-
ance
Cost SCORE, sum D:L
9 3 1 9 3 3 3 9 9 9 9 73
This resembles the commonly-used Technical Readiness Level (TRL) classification system, but has three levels, not nine. Moreover, as it will typically include the consideration of several technologies, concepts and information thought useful for the Method, these are rolled into a single, overall measure of technical readiness.
This provides an indication of what is the individual Method’s potential contribution to global cooling at its maximum feasible scale. Its typical measurement unit would be negative watts per square metre (-W/m2).
This roughly coincides with the number of gigatonnes of carbon (GtC/yr) that the Method could be expected to sequester at its maximum scale, from the atmosphere, for a period equal to or greater than a century. GtC for a fraction of a century are reduced by that fraction. For simplicity, the criterion omits consideration of other important greenhouse gases (such as methane) and airborne particulates. A red score indicates a value <1, yellow 1-5, green >5 GtC/yr.
This is a composite measure indicating how achievable is the negative Net Radiative Forcing (equals Global Cooling) that combines the effects of Solar Radiation Management (SRM), or Earthly albedo enhancement, and Thermal Radiation Management (TRM) measures designed to increase heat (long wave) radiation off-planet when the Method is deployed at maximum feasible scale. Where quantitative estimates or surrogates are unavailable, qualitative estimates are made.
This is the likely Cost-Effectiveness of the Method. When it can be quantified, it is an estimate of the current US dollar cost per negative watts per square metre ($/(-W/m2)) or the Net Negative Radiative Forcing of all the cooling effects of the Method, wherever they occur on the planet above the base of the marine mixed layer. Provisionally, Red might be >$10a, Yellow $1-10a, and Green <$1a/(-W/m2), where “a” is an appropriate factor changed to reflect the actual likely range of costs. If not readily quantified, then qualitative estimates or guesses are to be made.
Scalability has several different parameters or components, any of which may be or become limiting. One component of scalability is the proportion of the world’s surface or volume that can be used to deploy it. A second is whether there is/could be sufficient raw materials/chemicals, concentrations, available energy, temperature, pressure, space or habitat, and manufacturing capability to deploy it at optimum scale in a useful timeframe. A third is whether the species, diversity and biomass of them are, or could be made sufficient, and sufficiently capable, to carry out their part in the Method. This includes humanity, its robotic helpers, laws/regulations, agreements/conventions, finances, and politicosocioeconomic practices. A fourth is whether there is, or could be constructed, whatever is required in the way of software, AI/algorithms, datastores, supporting technologies, and communications necessary for optimal scalability. A fifth is a requirement for modicum of peace&security, health, civil order, and cooperation needed for the scalability to be achieved and maintained, together with limits to food, environmental and social stresses in key populations.
This relates to how quickly the Method could be researched, developed, deployed globally, and take substantial effect - noting that many Methods will typically have some effects, both positive and negative, that are delayed by years or longer. Initially, and for a crash or moonshot program (though with existential urgency, funding, and possibly widespread participation), a Green score might have a strongly, net beneficial effect by the deployed Method occurring in <5 years, Yellow in 5-25 years, and Red in >25 years. GATING/REVERSIBILITY: Gating is whether the Method can be tested at increasing scale, whilst learning by doing to address adverse effects or cost. Reversibility relates to whether, and how quickly, a trial can be stopped and/or its effects reversed. Reversibility might be scored thus. Major adverse effects cease or substantially decline within: Green <1 month, Yellow 1- 12 months, Red >1 year.
Gating is whether the Method can be tested at increasing scale, whilst learning by doing to address adverse effects or cost. Reversibility relates to whether, and how quickly, a trial can be stopped and/or its effects reversed. Reversibility might be scored thus. Major adverse effects cease or substantially decline within: Green <1 month, Yellow 1- 12 months, Red >1 year.
Risk is used in the Risk Management or risk impact assessment sense of being compared to what would be likely to happen without the intervention. It deals with probabilities and consequences of risk events if they are realised. It compares the products of the likelihood of the risk occurring within a given time (meaning perhaps millennia for climate risks) and its impact. As climate risk is now an existential one that is now happening, our interest lies in determining quickly which Methods have acceptable risks and ones which do not risk the social acceptance of most other interventions. Green means start gated testing urgently now, Yellow means seek ways to reduce likely adverse aspects, Red means research now, but do not deploy more widely unless equivalent Methods are insufficiently effective at cooling.
This refers to the likelihood that existing forms of governance can be enhanced to satisfy the bulk of the global community of the necessity to deploy the more prospective of the Methods, first at local, then national and then international levels. Extensive community engagement is likely to be required, following proof of concept, and explanations of its likely costs, opportunities and effects. Green = (eventually) potentially acceptable and with little downside, Yellow = has some modest downsides, most of which can be offset. Red = social acceptance is unlikely unless other, comparable Methods fail.
As the Effectiveness criterion refers to the developed and globally-scaled cost of direct cooling by the Method in question, this Cost refers more to the RD&D and capital costs of researching, then deploying it at different scales and in different variants, together with the costs of Measuring, Reporting and Verifying (MRV) the results of using the Method, probably by independent bodies. It also includes insurance and recompense costs and the likely cleanup costs afterwards, together with reductions for any revenues gained, including possible carbon and cooling credits, should they eventuate. Green = likely to be profitable, Yellow = requires modest subsidies for industry and NGO participation, Red = would require extensive and ongoing public subsidy. Source TBD.
A summation of the above scores, using Red = 1, Yellow = 3, and Green = 9. Total possible = 99.
Disseminating long-lived, ultra-slow-release, Buoyant Flakes carrying supplementary nutrients over the ocean surface mirrors what good farmers do on land. The flakes are made mainly from plentiful natural and waste materials using simple baking technology. They are designed to provide the iron, phosphate, silica and trace elements most needed by phytoplankton and seaweed to flourish.
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
Develop-
ment Status
Net Cooling Status Net Carbon Status Feasib-
ility
Effect-
iveness
Scal-
ability
Time-
liness
Gating/ Reversi-
bility
Risk Gover-
nance & Social Accept-
ance
Cost SCORE, sum D:L
3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 3 9 87
This resembles the commonly-used Technical Readiness Level (TRL) classification system, but has three levels, not nine. Moreover, as it will typically include the consideration of several technologies, concepts and information thought useful for the Method, these are rolled into a single, overall measure of technical readiness.
This provides an indication of what is the individual Method’s potential contribution to global cooling at its maximum feasible scale. Its typical measurement unit would be negative watts per square metre (-W/m2).
This roughly coincides with the number of gigatonnes of carbon (GtC/yr) that the Method could be expected to sequester at its maximum scale, from the atmosphere, for a period equal to or greater than a century. GtC for a fraction of a century are reduced by that fraction. For simplicity, the criterion omits consideration of other important greenhouse gases (such as methane) and airborne particulates. A red score indicates a value <1, yellow 1-5, green >5 GtC/yr.
This is a composite measure indicating how achievable is the negative Net Radiative Forcing (equals Global Cooling) that combines the effects of Solar Radiation Management (SRM), or Earthly albedo enhancement, and Thermal Radiation Management (TRM) measures designed to increase heat (long wave) radiation off-planet when the Method is deployed at maximum feasible scale. Where quantitative estimates or surrogates are unavailable, qualitative estimates are made.
This is the likely Cost-Effectiveness of the Method. When it can be quantified, it is an estimate of the current US dollar cost per negative watts per square metre ($/(-W/m2)) or the Net Negative Radiative Forcing of all the cooling effects of the Method, wherever they occur on the planet above the base of the marine mixed layer. Provisionally, Red might be >$10a, Yellow $1-10a, and Green <$1a/(-W/m2), where “a” is an appropriate factor changed to reflect the actual likely range of costs. If not readily quantified, then qualitative estimates or guesses are to be made.
Scalability has several different parameters or components, any of which may be or become limiting. One component of scalability is the proportion of the world’s surface or volume that can be used to deploy it. A second is whether there is/could be sufficient raw materials/chemicals, concentrations, available energy, temperature, pressure, space or habitat, and manufacturing capability to deploy it at optimum scale in a useful timeframe. A third is whether the species, diversity and biomass of them are, or could be made sufficient, and sufficiently capable, to carry out their part in the Method. This includes humanity, its robotic helpers, laws/regulations, agreements/conventions, finances, and politicosocioeconomic practices. A fourth is whether there is, or could be constructed, whatever is required in the way of software, AI/algorithms, datastores, supporting technologies, and communications necessary for optimal scalability. A fifth is a requirement for modicum of peace&security, health, civil order, and cooperation needed for the scalability to be achieved and maintained, together with limits to food, environmental and social stresses in key populations.
This relates to how quickly the Method could be researched, developed, deployed globally, and take substantial effect - noting that many Methods will typically have some effects, both positive and negative, that are delayed by years or longer. Initially, and for a crash or moonshot program (though with existential urgency, funding, and possibly widespread participation), a Green score might have a strongly, net beneficial effect by the deployed Method occurring in <5 years, Yellow in 5-25 years, and Red in >25 years. GATING/REVERSIBILITY: Gating is whether the Method can be tested at increasing scale, whilst learning by doing to address adverse effects or cost. Reversibility relates to whether, and how quickly, a trial can be stopped and/or its effects reversed. Reversibility might be scored thus. Major adverse effects cease or substantially decline within: Green <1 month, Yellow 1- 12 months, Red >1 year.
Gating is whether the Method can be tested at increasing scale, whilst learning by doing to address adverse effects or cost. Reversibility relates to whether, and how quickly, a trial can be stopped and/or its effects reversed. Reversibility might be scored thus. Major adverse effects cease or substantially decline within: Green <1 month, Yellow 1- 12 months, Red >1 year.
Risk is used in the Risk Management or risk impact assessment sense of being compared to what would be likely to happen without the intervention. It deals with probabilities and consequences of risk events if they are realised. It compares the products of the likelihood of the risk occurring within a given time (meaning perhaps millennia for climate risks) and its impact. As climate risk is now an existential one that is now happening, our interest lies in determining quickly which Methods have acceptable risks and ones which do not risk the social acceptance of most other interventions. Green means start gated testing urgently now, Yellow means seek ways to reduce likely adverse aspects, Red means research now, but do not deploy more widely unless equivalent Methods are insufficiently effective at cooling.
This refers to the likelihood that existing forms of governance can be enhanced to satisfy the bulk of the global community of the necessity to deploy the more prospective of the Methods, first at local, then national and then international levels. Extensive community engagement is likely to be required, following proof of concept, and explanations of its likely costs, opportunities and effects. Green = (eventually) potentially acceptable and with little downside, Yellow = has some modest downsides, most of which can be offset. Red = social acceptance is unlikely unless other, comparable Methods fail.
As the Effectiveness criterion refers to the developed and globally-scaled cost of direct cooling by the Method in question, this Cost refers more to the RD&D and capital costs of researching, then deploying it at different scales and in different variants, together with the costs of Measuring, Reporting and Verifying (MRV) the results of using the Method, probably by independent bodies. It also includes insurance and recompense costs and the likely cleanup costs afterwards, together with reductions for any revenues gained, including possible carbon and cooling credits, should they eventuate. Green = likely to be profitable, Yellow = requires modest subsidies for industry and NGO participation, Red = would require extensive and ongoing public subsidy. Source TBD.
A summation of the above scores, using Red = 1, Yellow = 3, and Green = 9. Total possible = 99.
The method mimics the effect of tropospheric loess dust on airborne pollutants.
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
Develop-
ment Status
Net Cooling Status Net Carbon Status Feasib-
ility
Effect-
iveness
Scal-
ability
Time-
liness
Gating/ Reversi-
bility
Risk Gover-
nance & Social Accept-
ance
Cost SCORE, sum D:L
1 3 1 9 9 9 9 3 3 1 1 49
This resembles the commonly-used Technical Readiness Level (TRL) classification system, but has three levels, not nine. Moreover, as it will typically include the consideration of several technologies, concepts and information thought useful for the Method, these are rolled into a single, overall measure of technical readiness.
This provides an indication of what is the individual Method’s potential contribution to global cooling at its maximum feasible scale. Its typical measurement unit would be negative watts per square metre (-W/m2).
This roughly coincides with the number of gigatonnes of carbon (GtC/yr) that the Method could be expected to sequester at its maximum scale, from the atmosphere, for a period equal to or greater than a century. GtC for a fraction of a century are reduced by that fraction. For simplicity, the criterion omits consideration of other important greenhouse gases (such as methane) and airborne particulates. A red score indicates a value <1, yellow 1-5, green >5 GtC/yr.
This is a composite measure indicating how achievable is the negative Net Radiative Forcing (equals Global Cooling) that combines the effects of Solar Radiation Management (SRM), or Earthly albedo enhancement, and Thermal Radiation Management (TRM) measures designed to increase heat (long wave) radiation off-planet when the Method is deployed at maximum feasible scale. Where quantitative estimates or surrogates are unavailable, qualitative estimates are made.
This is the likely Cost-Effectiveness of the Method. When it can be quantified, it is an estimate of the current US dollar cost per negative watts per square metre ($/(-W/m2)) or the Net Negative Radiative Forcing of all the cooling effects of the Method, wherever they occur on the planet above the base of the marine mixed layer. Provisionally, Red might be >$10a, Yellow $1-10a, and Green <$1a/(-W/m2), where “a” is an appropriate factor changed to reflect the actual likely range of costs. If not readily quantified, then qualitative estimates or guesses are to be made.
Scalability has several different parameters or components, any of which may be or become limiting. One component of scalability is the proportion of the world’s surface or volume that can be used to deploy it. A second is whether there is/could be sufficient raw materials/chemicals, concentrations, available energy, temperature, pressure, space or habitat, and manufacturing capability to deploy it at optimum scale in a useful timeframe. A third is whether the species, diversity and biomass of them are, or could be made sufficient, and sufficiently capable, to carry out their part in the Method. This includes humanity, its robotic helpers, laws/regulations, agreements/conventions, finances, and politicosocioeconomic practices. A fourth is whether there is, or could be constructed, whatever is required in the way of software, AI/algorithms, datastores, supporting technologies, and communications necessary for optimal scalability. A fifth is a requirement for modicum of peace&security, health, civil order, and cooperation needed for the scalability to be achieved and maintained, together with limits to food, environmental and social stresses in key populations.
This relates to how quickly the Method could be researched, developed, deployed globally, and take substantial effect - noting that many Methods will typically have some effects, both positive and negative, that are delayed by years or longer. Initially, and for a crash or moonshot program (though with existential urgency, funding, and possibly widespread participation), a Green score might have a strongly, net beneficial effect by the deployed Method occurring in <5 years, Yellow in 5-25 years, and Red in >25 years. GATING/REVERSIBILITY: Gating is whether the Method can be tested at increasing scale, whilst learning by doing to address adverse effects or cost. Reversibility relates to whether, and how quickly, a trial can be stopped and/or its effects reversed. Reversibility might be scored thus. Major adverse effects cease or substantially decline within: Green <1 month, Yellow 1- 12 months, Red >1 year.
Gating is whether the Method can be tested at increasing scale, whilst learning by doing to address adverse effects or cost. Reversibility relates to whether, and how quickly, a trial can be stopped and/or its effects reversed. Reversibility might be scored thus. Major adverse effects cease or substantially decline within: Green <1 month, Yellow 1- 12 months, Red >1 year.
Risk is used in the Risk Management or risk impact assessment sense of being compared to what would be likely to happen without the intervention. It deals with probabilities and consequences of risk events if they are realised. It compares the products of the likelihood of the risk occurring within a given time (meaning perhaps millennia for climate risks) and its impact. As climate risk is now an existential one that is now happening, our interest lies in determining quickly which Methods have acceptable risks and ones which do not risk the social acceptance of most other interventions. Green means start gated testing urgently now, Yellow means seek ways to reduce likely adverse aspects, Red means research now, but do not deploy more widely unless equivalent Methods are insufficiently effective at cooling.
This refers to the likelihood that existing forms of governance can be enhanced to satisfy the bulk of the global community of the necessity to deploy the more prospective of the Methods, first at local, then national and then international levels. Extensive community engagement is likely to be required, following proof of concept, and explanations of its likely costs, opportunities and effects. Green = (eventually) potentially acceptable and with little downside, Yellow = has some modest downsides, most of which can be offset. Red = social acceptance is unlikely unless other, comparable Methods fail.
As the Effectiveness criterion refers to the developed and globally-scaled cost of direct cooling by the Method in question, this Cost refers more to the RD&D and capital costs of researching, then deploying it at different scales and in different variants, together with the costs of Measuring, Reporting and Verifying (MRV) the results of using the Method, probably by independent bodies. It also includes insurance and recompense costs and the likely cleanup costs afterwards, together with reductions for any revenues gained, including possible carbon and cooling credits, should they eventuate. Green = likely to be profitable, Yellow = requires modest subsidies for industry and NGO participation, Red = would require extensive and ongoing public subsidy. Source TBD.
A summation of the above scores, using Red = 1, Yellow = 3, and Green = 9. Total possible = 99.
A Fiztop (a top-shaped producer of fizzy bubbles) is a floating, lightweight, solar-powered unit designed to generate long-lived, reflective nanobubbles in the sea surface microlayer (SSML).
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
Develop-
ment Status
Net Cooling Status Net Carbon Status Feasib-
ility
Effect-
iveness
Scal-
ability
Time-
liness
Gating/ Reversi-
bility
Risk Gover-
nance & Social Accept-
ance
Cost SCORE, sum D:L
1 3 3 3 3 3 9 9 9 9 9 61
This resembles the commonly-used Technical Readiness Level (TRL) classification system, but has three levels, not nine. Moreover, as it will typically include the consideration of several technologies, concepts and information thought useful for the Method, these are rolled into a single, overall measure of technical readiness.
This provides an indication of what is the individual Method’s potential contribution to global cooling at its maximum feasible scale. Its typical measurement unit would be negative watts per square metre (-W/m2).
This roughly coincides with the number of gigatonnes of carbon (GtC/yr) that the Method could be expected to sequester at its maximum scale, from the atmosphere, for a period equal to or greater than a century. GtC for a fraction of a century are reduced by that fraction. For simplicity, the criterion omits consideration of other important greenhouse gases (such as methane) and airborne particulates. A red score indicates a value <1, yellow 1-5, green >5 GtC/yr.
This is a composite measure indicating how achievable is the negative Net Radiative Forcing (equals Global Cooling) that combines the effects of Solar Radiation Management (SRM), or Earthly albedo enhancement, and Thermal Radiation Management (TRM) measures designed to increase heat (long wave) radiation off-planet when the Method is deployed at maximum feasible scale. Where quantitative estimates or surrogates are unavailable, qualitative estimates are made.
This is the likely Cost-Effectiveness of the Method. When it can be quantified, it is an estimate of the current US dollar cost per negative watts per square metre ($/(-W/m2)) or the Net Negative Radiative Forcing of all the cooling effects of the Method, wherever they occur on the planet above the base of the marine mixed layer. Provisionally, Red might be >$10a, Yellow $1-10a, and Green <$1a/(-W/m2), where “a” is an appropriate factor changed to reflect the actual likely range of costs. If not readily quantified, then qualitative estimates or guesses are to be made.
Scalability has several different parameters or components, any of which may be or become limiting. One component of scalability is the proportion of the world’s surface or volume that can be used to deploy it. A second is whether there is/could be sufficient raw materials/chemicals, concentrations, available energy, temperature, pressure, space or habitat, and manufacturing capability to deploy it at optimum scale in a useful timeframe. A third is whether the species, diversity and biomass of them are, or could be made sufficient, and sufficiently capable, to carry out their part in the Method. This includes humanity, its robotic helpers, laws/regulations, agreements/conventions, finances, and politicosocioeconomic practices. A fourth is whether there is, or could be constructed, whatever is required in the way of software, AI/algorithms, datastores, supporting technologies, and communications necessary for optimal scalability. A fifth is a requirement for modicum of peace&security, health, civil order, and cooperation needed for the scalability to be achieved and maintained, together with limits to food, environmental and social stresses in key populations.
This relates to how quickly the Method could be researched, developed, deployed globally, and take substantial effect - noting that many Methods will typically have some effects, both positive and negative, that are delayed by years or longer. Initially, and for a crash or moonshot program (though with existential urgency, funding, and possibly widespread participation), a Green score might have a strongly, net beneficial effect by the deployed Method occurring in <5 years, Yellow in 5-25 years, and Red in >25 years. GATING/REVERSIBILITY: Gating is whether the Method can be tested at increasing scale, whilst learning by doing to address adverse effects or cost. Reversibility relates to whether, and how quickly, a trial can be stopped and/or its effects reversed. Reversibility might be scored thus. Major adverse effects cease or substantially decline within: Green <1 month, Yellow 1- 12 months, Red >1 year.
Gating is whether the Method can be tested at increasing scale, whilst learning by doing to address adverse effects or cost. Reversibility relates to whether, and how quickly, a trial can be stopped and/or its effects reversed. Reversibility might be scored thus. Major adverse effects cease or substantially decline within: Green <1 month, Yellow 1- 12 months, Red >1 year.
Risk is used in the Risk Management or risk impact assessment sense of being compared to what would be likely to happen without the intervention. It deals with probabilities and consequences of risk events if they are realised. It compares the products of the likelihood of the risk occurring within a given time (meaning perhaps millennia for climate risks) and its impact. As climate risk is now an existential one that is now happening, our interest lies in determining quickly which Methods have acceptable risks and ones which do not risk the social acceptance of most other interventions. Green means start gated testing urgently now, Yellow means seek ways to reduce likely adverse aspects, Red means research now, but do not deploy more widely unless equivalent Methods are insufficiently effective at cooling.
This refers to the likelihood that existing forms of governance can be enhanced to satisfy the bulk of the global community of the necessity to deploy the more prospective of the Methods, first at local, then national and then international levels. Extensive community engagement is likely to be required, following proof of concept, and explanations of its likely costs, opportunities and effects. Green = (eventually) potentially acceptable and with little downside, Yellow = has some modest downsides, most of which can be offset. Red = social acceptance is unlikely unless other, comparable Methods fail.
As the Effectiveness criterion refers to the developed and globally-scaled cost of direct cooling by the Method in question, this Cost refers more to the RD&D and capital costs of researching, then deploying it at different scales and in different variants, together with the costs of Measuring, Reporting and Verifying (MRV) the results of using the Method, probably by independent bodies. It also includes insurance and recompense costs and the likely cleanup costs afterwards, together with reductions for any revenues gained, including possible carbon and cooling credits, should they eventuate. Green = likely to be profitable, Yellow = requires modest subsidies for industry and NGO participation, Red = would require extensive and ongoing public subsidy. Source TBD.
A summation of the above scores, using Red = 1, Yellow = 3, and Green = 9. Total possible = 99.
In colder seasons, sea ice can be thickened by pumping seawater onto it in calibrated gushes so that it: forms semi-permanent, above and below ice polar habitat; enhances albedo; may stably ground the new ice arrays; stabilises coastlines, glaciers and the polar vortex; reduces or converts ebullient methane emissions; increases snowfall and off-planet heat radiation; and sequesters carbon dioxide and oxygen gases in the deep.
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
Develop-
ment Status
Net Cooling Status Net Carbon Status Feasib-
ility
Effect-
iveness
Scal-
ability
Time-
liness
Gating/ Reversi-
bility
Risk Gover-
nance & Social Accept-
ance
Cost SCORE, sum D:L
3 9 9 3 3 9 3 9 3 3 3 57
This resembles the commonly-used Technical Readiness Level (TRL) classification system, but has three levels, not nine. Moreover, as it will typically include the consideration of several technologies, concepts and information thought useful for the Method, these are rolled into a single, overall measure of technical readiness.
This provides an indication of what is the individual Method’s potential contribution to global cooling at its maximum feasible scale. Its typical measurement unit would be negative watts per square metre (-W/m2).
This roughly coincides with the number of gigatonnes of carbon (GtC/yr) that the Method could be expected to sequester at its maximum scale, from the atmosphere, for a period equal to or greater than a century. GtC for a fraction of a century are reduced by that fraction. For simplicity, the criterion omits consideration of other important greenhouse gases (such as methane) and airborne particulates. A red score indicates a value <1, yellow 1-5, green >5 GtC/yr.
This is a composite measure indicating how achievable is the negative Net Radiative Forcing (equals Global Cooling) that combines the effects of Solar Radiation Management (SRM), or Earthly albedo enhancement, and Thermal Radiation Management (TRM) measures designed to increase heat (long wave) radiation off-planet when the Method is deployed at maximum feasible scale. Where quantitative estimates or surrogates are unavailable, qualitative estimates are made.
This is the likely Cost-Effectiveness of the Method. When it can be quantified, it is an estimate of the current US dollar cost per negative watts per square metre ($/(-W/m2)) or the Net Negative Radiative Forcing of all the cooling effects of the Method, wherever they occur on the planet above the base of the marine mixed layer. Provisionally, Red might be >$10a, Yellow $1-10a, and Green <$1a/(-W/m2), where “a” is an appropriate factor changed to reflect the actual likely range of costs. If not readily quantified, then qualitative estimates or guesses are to be made.
Scalability has several different parameters or components, any of which may be or become limiting. One component of scalability is the proportion of the world’s surface or volume that can be used to deploy it. A second is whether there is/could be sufficient raw materials/chemicals, concentrations, available energy, temperature, pressure, space or habitat, and manufacturing capability to deploy it at optimum scale in a useful timeframe. A third is whether the species, diversity and biomass of them are, or could be made sufficient, and sufficiently capable, to carry out their part in the Method. This includes humanity, its robotic helpers, laws/regulations, agreements/conventions, finances, and politicosocioeconomic practices. A fourth is whether there is, or could be constructed, whatever is required in the way of software, AI/algorithms, datastores, supporting technologies, and communications necessary for optimal scalability. A fifth is a requirement for modicum of peace&security, health, civil order, and cooperation needed for the scalability to be achieved and maintained, together with limits to food, environmental and social stresses in key populations.
This relates to how quickly the Method could be researched, developed, deployed globally, and take substantial effect - noting that many Methods will typically have some effects, both positive and negative, that are delayed by years or longer. Initially, and for a crash or moonshot program (though with existential urgency, funding, and possibly widespread participation), a Green score might have a strongly, net beneficial effect by the deployed Method occurring in <5 years, Yellow in 5-25 years, and Red in >25 years. GATING/REVERSIBILITY: Gating is whether the Method can be tested at increasing scale, whilst learning by doing to address adverse effects or cost. Reversibility relates to whether, and how quickly, a trial can be stopped and/or its effects reversed. Reversibility might be scored thus. Major adverse effects cease or substantially decline within: Green <1 month, Yellow 1- 12 months, Red >1 year.
Gating is whether the Method can be tested at increasing scale, whilst learning by doing to address adverse effects or cost. Reversibility relates to whether, and how quickly, a trial can be stopped and/or its effects reversed. Reversibility might be scored thus. Major adverse effects cease or substantially decline within: Green <1 month, Yellow 1- 12 months, Red >1 year.
Risk is used in the Risk Management or risk impact assessment sense of being compared to what would be likely to happen without the intervention. It deals with probabilities and consequences of risk events if they are realised. It compares the products of the likelihood of the risk occurring within a given time (meaning perhaps millennia for climate risks) and its impact. As climate risk is now an existential one that is now happening, our interest lies in determining quickly which Methods have acceptable risks and ones which do not risk the social acceptance of most other interventions. Green means start gated testing urgently now, Yellow means seek ways to reduce likely adverse aspects, Red means research now, but do not deploy more widely unless equivalent Methods are insufficiently effective at cooling.
This refers to the likelihood that existing forms of governance can be enhanced to satisfy the bulk of the global community of the necessity to deploy the more prospective of the Methods, first at local, then national and then international levels. Extensive community engagement is likely to be required, following proof of concept, and explanations of its likely costs, opportunities and effects. Green = (eventually) potentially acceptable and with little downside, Yellow = has some modest downsides, most of which can be offset. Red = social acceptance is unlikely unless other, comparable Methods fail.
As the Effectiveness criterion refers to the developed and globally-scaled cost of direct cooling by the Method in question, this Cost refers more to the RD&D and capital costs of researching, then deploying it at different scales and in different variants, together with the costs of Measuring, Reporting and Verifying (MRV) the results of using the Method, probably by independent bodies. It also includes insurance and recompense costs and the likely cleanup costs afterwards, together with reductions for any revenues gained, including possible carbon and cooling credits, should they eventuate. Green = likely to be profitable, Yellow = requires modest subsidies for industry and NGO participation, Red = would require extensive and ongoing public subsidy. Source TBD.
A summation of the above scores, using Red = 1, Yellow = 3, and Green = 9. Total possible = 99.
MPAs and their infrastructure are designed to bring cooling and nutrients so that kelp can be grown and harvested in most cool and temperate waters, often far from land.
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
Develop-
ment Status
Net Cooling Status Net Carbon Status Feasib-
ility
Effect-
iveness
Scal-
ability
Time-
liness
Gating/ Reversi-
bility
Risk Gover-
nance & Social Accept-
ance
Cost SCORE, sum D:L
3 3 3 9 3 3 3 9 9 9 9 63
This resembles the commonly-used Technical Readiness Level (TRL) classification system, but has three levels, not nine. Moreover, as it will typically include the consideration of several technologies, concepts and information thought useful for the Method, these are rolled into a single, overall measure of technical readiness.
This provides an indication of what is the individual Method’s potential contribution to global cooling at its maximum feasible scale. Its typical measurement unit would be negative watts per square metre (-W/m2).
This roughly coincides with the number of gigatonnes of carbon (GtC/yr) that the Method could be expected to sequester at its maximum scale, from the atmosphere, for a period equal to or greater than a century. GtC for a fraction of a century are reduced by that fraction. For simplicity, the criterion omits consideration of other important greenhouse gases (such as methane) and airborne particulates. A red score indicates a value <1, yellow 1-5, green >5 GtC/yr.
This is a composite measure indicating how achievable is the negative Net Radiative Forcing (equals Global Cooling) that combines the effects of Solar Radiation Management (SRM), or Earthly albedo enhancement, and Thermal Radiation Management (TRM) measures designed to increase heat (long wave) radiation off-planet when the Method is deployed at maximum feasible scale. Where quantitative estimates or surrogates are unavailable, qualitative estimates are made.
This is the likely Cost-Effectiveness of the Method. When it can be quantified, it is an estimate of the current US dollar cost per negative watts per square metre ($/(-W/m2)) or the Net Negative Radiative Forcing of all the cooling effects of the Method, wherever they occur on the planet above the base of the marine mixed layer. Provisionally, Red might be >$10a, Yellow $1-10a, and Green <$1a/(-W/m2), where “a” is an appropriate factor changed to reflect the actual likely range of costs. If not readily quantified, then qualitative estimates or guesses are to be made.
Scalability has several different parameters or components, any of which may be or become limiting. One component of scalability is the proportion of the world’s surface or volume that can be used to deploy it. A second is whether there is/could be sufficient raw materials/chemicals, concentrations, available energy, temperature, pressure, space or habitat, and manufacturing capability to deploy it at optimum scale in a useful timeframe. A third is whether the species, diversity and biomass of them are, or could be made sufficient, and sufficiently capable, to carry out their part in the Method. This includes humanity, its robotic helpers, laws/regulations, agreements/conventions, finances, and politicosocioeconomic practices. A fourth is whether there is, or could be constructed, whatever is required in the way of software, AI/algorithms, datastores, supporting technologies, and communications necessary for optimal scalability. A fifth is a requirement for modicum of peace&security, health, civil order, and cooperation needed for the scalability to be achieved and maintained, together with limits to food, environmental and social stresses in key populations.
This relates to how quickly the Method could be researched, developed, deployed globally, and take substantial effect - noting that many Methods will typically have some effects, both positive and negative, that are delayed by years or longer. Initially, and for a crash or moonshot program (though with existential urgency, funding, and possibly widespread participation), a Green score might have a strongly, net beneficial effect by the deployed Method occurring in <5 years, Yellow in 5-25 years, and Red in >25 years. GATING/REVERSIBILITY: Gating is whether the Method can be tested at increasing scale, whilst learning by doing to address adverse effects or cost. Reversibility relates to whether, and how quickly, a trial can be stopped and/or its effects reversed. Reversibility might be scored thus. Major adverse effects cease or substantially decline within: Green <1 month, Yellow 1- 12 months, Red >1 year.
Gating is whether the Method can be tested at increasing scale, whilst learning by doing to address adverse effects or cost. Reversibility relates to whether, and how quickly, a trial can be stopped and/or its effects reversed. Reversibility might be scored thus. Major adverse effects cease or substantially decline within: Green <1 month, Yellow 1- 12 months, Red >1 year.
Risk is used in the Risk Management or risk impact assessment sense of being compared to what would be likely to happen without the intervention. It deals with probabilities and consequences of risk events if they are realised. It compares the products of the likelihood of the risk occurring within a given time (meaning perhaps millennia for climate risks) and its impact. As climate risk is now an existential one that is now happening, our interest lies in determining quickly which Methods have acceptable risks and ones which do not risk the social acceptance of most other interventions. Green means start gated testing urgently now, Yellow means seek ways to reduce likely adverse aspects, Red means research now, but do not deploy more widely unless equivalent Methods are insufficiently effective at cooling.
This refers to the likelihood that existing forms of governance can be enhanced to satisfy the bulk of the global community of the necessity to deploy the more prospective of the Methods, first at local, then national and then international levels. Extensive community engagement is likely to be required, following proof of concept, and explanations of its likely costs, opportunities and effects. Green = (eventually) potentially acceptable and with little downside, Yellow = has some modest downsides, most of which can be offset. Red = social acceptance is unlikely unless other, comparable Methods fail.
As the Effectiveness criterion refers to the developed and globally-scaled cost of direct cooling by the Method in question, this Cost refers more to the RD&D and capital costs of researching, then deploying it at different scales and in different variants, together with the costs of Measuring, Reporting and Verifying (MRV) the results of using the Method, probably by independent bodies. It also includes insurance and recompense costs and the likely cleanup costs afterwards, together with reductions for any revenues gained, including possible carbon and cooling credits, should they eventuate. Green = likely to be profitable, Yellow = requires modest subsidies for industry and NGO participation, Red = would require extensive and ongoing public subsidy. Source TBD.
A summation of the above scores, using Red = 1, Yellow = 3, and Green = 9. Total possible = 99.
Wind-powered Salter Spray Ships are used to generate cloud condensing nuclei (CCN) designed to thicken marine cloud, thus cooling both the ocean surface waters and the atmosphere.
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
Develop-
ment Status
Net Cooling Status Net Carbon Status Feasib-
ility
Effect-
iveness
Scal-
ability
Time-
liness
Gating/ Reversi-
bility
Risk Gover-
nance & Social Accept-
ance
Cost SCORE, sum D:L
3 3 1 3 3 3 9 9 9 9 3 55
This resembles the commonly-used Technical Readiness Level (TRL) classification system, but has three levels, not nine. Moreover, as it will typically include the consideration of several technologies, concepts and information thought useful for the Method, these are rolled into a single, overall measure of technical readiness.
This provides an indication of what is the individual Method’s potential contribution to global cooling at its maximum feasible scale. Its typical measurement unit would be negative watts per square metre (-W/m2).
This roughly coincides with the number of gigatonnes of carbon (GtC/yr) that the Method could be expected to sequester at its maximum scale, from the atmosphere, for a period equal to or greater than a century. GtC for a fraction of a century are reduced by that fraction. For simplicity, the criterion omits consideration of other important greenhouse gases (such as methane) and airborne particulates. A red score indicates a value <1, yellow 1-5, green >5 GtC/yr.
This is a composite measure indicating how achievable is the negative Net Radiative Forcing (equals Global Cooling) that combines the effects of Solar Radiation Management (SRM), or Earthly albedo enhancement, and Thermal Radiation Management (TRM) measures designed to increase heat (long wave) radiation off-planet when the Method is deployed at maximum feasible scale. Where quantitative estimates or surrogates are unavailable, qualitative estimates are made.
This is the likely Cost-Effectiveness of the Method. When it can be quantified, it is an estimate of the current US dollar cost per negative watts per square metre ($/(-W/m2)) or the Net Negative Radiative Forcing of all the cooling effects of the Method, wherever they occur on the planet above the base of the marine mixed layer. Provisionally, Red might be >$10a, Yellow $1-10a, and Green <$1a/(-W/m2), where “a” is an appropriate factor changed to reflect the actual likely range of costs. If not readily quantified, then qualitative estimates or guesses are to be made.
Scalability has several different parameters or components, any of which may be or become limiting. One component of scalability is the proportion of the world’s surface or volume that can be used to deploy it. A second is whether there is/could be sufficient raw materials/chemicals, concentrations, available energy, temperature, pressure, space or habitat, and manufacturing capability to deploy it at optimum scale in a useful timeframe. A third is whether the species, diversity and biomass of them are, or could be made sufficient, and sufficiently capable, to carry out their part in the Method. This includes humanity, its robotic helpers, laws/regulations, agreements/conventions, finances, and politicosocioeconomic practices. A fourth is whether there is, or could be constructed, whatever is required in the way of software, AI/algorithms, datastores, supporting technologies, and communications necessary for optimal scalability. A fifth is a requirement for modicum of peace&security, health, civil order, and cooperation needed for the scalability to be achieved and maintained, together with limits to food, environmental and social stresses in key populations.
This relates to how quickly the Method could be researched, developed, deployed globally, and take substantial effect - noting that many Methods will typically have some effects, both positive and negative, that are delayed by years or longer. Initially, and for a crash or moonshot program (though with existential urgency, funding, and possibly widespread participation), a Green score might have a strongly, net beneficial effect by the deployed Method occurring in <5 years, Yellow in 5-25 years, and Red in >25 years. GATING/REVERSIBILITY: Gating is whether the Method can be tested at increasing scale, whilst learning by doing to address adverse effects or cost. Reversibility relates to whether, and how quickly, a trial can be stopped and/or its effects reversed. Reversibility might be scored thus. Major adverse effects cease or substantially decline within: Green <1 month, Yellow 1- 12 months, Red >1 year.
Gating is whether the Method can be tested at increasing scale, whilst learning by doing to address adverse effects or cost. Reversibility relates to whether, and how quickly, a trial can be stopped and/or its effects reversed. Reversibility might be scored thus. Major adverse effects cease or substantially decline within: Green <1 month, Yellow 1- 12 months, Red >1 year.
Risk is used in the Risk Management or risk impact assessment sense of being compared to what would be likely to happen without the intervention. It deals with probabilities and consequences of risk events if they are realised. It compares the products of the likelihood of the risk occurring within a given time (meaning perhaps millennia for climate risks) and its impact. As climate risk is now an existential one that is now happening, our interest lies in determining quickly which Methods have acceptable risks and ones which do not risk the social acceptance of most other interventions. Green means start gated testing urgently now, Yellow means seek ways to reduce likely adverse aspects, Red means research now, but do not deploy more widely unless equivalent Methods are insufficiently effective at cooling.
This refers to the likelihood that existing forms of governance can be enhanced to satisfy the bulk of the global community of the necessity to deploy the more prospective of the Methods, first at local, then national and then international levels. Extensive community engagement is likely to be required, following proof of concept, and explanations of its likely costs, opportunities and effects. Green = (eventually) potentially acceptable and with little downside, Yellow = has some modest downsides, most of which can be offset. Red = social acceptance is unlikely unless other, comparable Methods fail.
As the Effectiveness criterion refers to the developed and globally-scaled cost of direct cooling by the Method in question, this Cost refers more to the RD&D and capital costs of researching, then deploying it at different scales and in different variants, together with the costs of Measuring, Reporting and Verifying (MRV) the results of using the Method, probably by independent bodies. It also includes insurance and recompense costs and the likely cleanup costs afterwards, together with reductions for any revenues gained, including possible carbon and cooling credits, should they eventuate. Green = likely to be profitable, Yellow = requires modest subsidies for industry and NGO participation, Red = would require extensive and ongoing public subsidy. Source TBD.
A summation of the above scores, using Red = 1, Yellow = 3, and Green = 9. Total possible = 99.
Seawater moving through a submerged pipe conducts cool, nutrient-rich water diagonally upwards where it is useful to photosynthetic organisms. Whilst still conceptual, marine engineering is currently being carried out by the Australian Maritime College.
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
Develop-
ment Status
Net Cooling Status Net Carbon Status Feasib-
ility
Effect-
iveness
Scal-
ability
Time-
liness
Gating/ Reversi-
bility
Risk Gover-
nance & Social Accept-
ance
Cost SCORE, sum D:L
1 3 3 9 3 3 9 9 9 9 9 67
This resembles the commonly-used Technical Readiness Level (TRL) classification system, but has three levels, not nine. Moreover, as it will typically include the consideration of several technologies, concepts and information thought useful for the Method, these are rolled into a single, overall measure of technical readiness.
This provides an indication of what is the individual Method’s potential contribution to global cooling at its maximum feasible scale. Its typical measurement unit would be negative watts per square metre (-W/m2).
This roughly coincides with the number of gigatonnes of carbon (GtC/yr) that the Method could be expected to sequester at its maximum scale, from the atmosphere, for a period equal to or greater than a century. GtC for a fraction of a century are reduced by that fraction. For simplicity, the criterion omits consideration of other important greenhouse gases (such as methane) and airborne particulates. A red score indicates a value <1, yellow 1-5, green >5 GtC/yr.
This is a composite measure indicating how achievable is the negative Net Radiative Forcing (equals Global Cooling) that combines the effects of Solar Radiation Management (SRM), or Earthly albedo enhancement, and Thermal Radiation Management (TRM) measures designed to increase heat (long wave) radiation off-planet when the Method is deployed at maximum feasible scale. Where quantitative estimates or surrogates are unavailable, qualitative estimates are made.
This is the likely Cost-Effectiveness of the Method. When it can be quantified, it is an estimate of the current US dollar cost per negative watts per square metre ($/(-W/m2)) or the Net Negative Radiative Forcing of all the cooling effects of the Method, wherever they occur on the planet above the base of the marine mixed layer. Provisionally, Red might be >$10a, Yellow $1-10a, and Green <$1a/(-W/m2), where “a” is an appropriate factor changed to reflect the actual likely range of costs. If not readily quantified, then qualitative estimates or guesses are to be made.
Scalability has several different parameters or components, any of which may be or become limiting. One component of scalability is the proportion of the world’s surface or volume that can be used to deploy it. A second is whether there is/could be sufficient raw materials/chemicals, concentrations, available energy, temperature, pressure, space or habitat, and manufacturing capability to deploy it at optimum scale in a useful timeframe. A third is whether the species, diversity and biomass of them are, or could be made sufficient, and sufficiently capable, to carry out their part in the Method. This includes humanity, its robotic helpers, laws/regulations, agreements/conventions, finances, and politicosocioeconomic practices. A fourth is whether there is, or could be constructed, whatever is required in the way of software, AI/algorithms, datastores, supporting technologies, and communications necessary for optimal scalability. A fifth is a requirement for modicum of peace&security, health, civil order, and cooperation needed for the scalability to be achieved and maintained, together with limits to food, environmental and social stresses in key populations.
This relates to how quickly the Method could be researched, developed, deployed globally, and take substantial effect - noting that many Methods will typically have some effects, both positive and negative, that are delayed by years or longer. Initially, and for a crash or moonshot program (though with existential urgency, funding, and possibly widespread participation), a Green score might have a strongly, net beneficial effect by the deployed Method occurring in <5 years, Yellow in 5-25 years, and Red in >25 years. GATING/REVERSIBILITY: Gating is whether the Method can be tested at increasing scale, whilst learning by doing to address adverse effects or cost. Reversibility relates to whether, and how quickly, a trial can be stopped and/or its effects reversed. Reversibility might be scored thus. Major adverse effects cease or substantially decline within: Green <1 month, Yellow 1- 12 months, Red >1 year.
Gating is whether the Method can be tested at increasing scale, whilst learning by doing to address adverse effects or cost. Reversibility relates to whether, and how quickly, a trial can be stopped and/or its effects reversed. Reversibility might be scored thus. Major adverse effects cease or substantially decline within: Green <1 month, Yellow 1- 12 months, Red >1 year.
Risk is used in the Risk Management or risk impact assessment sense of being compared to what would be likely to happen without the intervention. It deals with probabilities and consequences of risk events if they are realised. It compares the products of the likelihood of the risk occurring within a given time (meaning perhaps millennia for climate risks) and its impact. As climate risk is now an existential one that is now happening, our interest lies in determining quickly which Methods have acceptable risks and ones which do not risk the social acceptance of most other interventions. Green means start gated testing urgently now, Yellow means seek ways to reduce likely adverse aspects, Red means research now, but do not deploy more widely unless equivalent Methods are insufficiently effective at cooling.
This refers to the likelihood that existing forms of governance can be enhanced to satisfy the bulk of the global community of the necessity to deploy the more prospective of the Methods, first at local, then national and then international levels. Extensive community engagement is likely to be required, following proof of concept, and explanations of its likely costs, opportunities and effects. Green = (eventually) potentially acceptable and with little downside, Yellow = has some modest downsides, most of which can be offset. Red = social acceptance is unlikely unless other, comparable Methods fail.
As the Effectiveness criterion refers to the developed and globally-scaled cost of direct cooling by the Method in question, this Cost refers more to the RD&D and capital costs of researching, then deploying it at different scales and in different variants, together with the costs of Measuring, Reporting and Verifying (MRV) the results of using the Method, probably by independent bodies. It also includes insurance and recompense costs and the likely cleanup costs afterwards, together with reductions for any revenues gained, including possible carbon and cooling credits, should they eventuate. Green = likely to be profitable, Yellow = requires modest subsidies for industry and NGO participation, Red = would require extensive and ongoing public subsidy. Source TBD.
A summation of the above scores, using Red = 1, Yellow = 3, and Green = 9. Total possible = 99.
Floating Seatomiser masts use wind turbine energy to spray seawater droplets of specific size ranges into the lower troposphere. Commercial spray nozzles are modified to work at higher tri-phasic pressures and to produce droplets for different purposes: coarse and medium sized ones to humidify air at different wind speeds, and baffle-conditioned, fine ones from flat fan spray nozzles to generate evaporating droplets that nucleate marine cloud and/or create sea salt aerosols (SSA).
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
Develop-
ment Status
Net Cooling Status Net Carbon Status Feasib-
ility
Effect-
iveness
Scal-
ability
Time-
liness
Gating/ Reversi-
bility
Risk Gover-
nance & Social Accept-
ance
Cost SCORE, sum D:L
3 3 3 3 9 9 9 9 9 9 3 69
This resembles the commonly-used Technical Readiness Level (TRL) classification system, but has three levels, not nine. Moreover, as it will typically include the consideration of several technologies, concepts and information thought useful for the Method, these are rolled into a single, overall measure of technical readiness.
This provides an indication of what is the individual Method’s potential contribution to global cooling at its maximum feasible scale. Its typical measurement unit would be negative watts per square metre (-W/m2).
This roughly coincides with the number of gigatonnes of carbon (GtC/yr) that the Method could be expected to sequester at its maximum scale, from the atmosphere, for a period equal to or greater than a century. GtC for a fraction of a century are reduced by that fraction. For simplicity, the criterion omits consideration of other important greenhouse gases (such as methane) and airborne particulates. A red score indicates a value <1, yellow 1-5, green >5 GtC/yr.
This is a composite measure indicating how achievable is the negative Net Radiative Forcing (equals Global Cooling) that combines the effects of Solar Radiation Management (SRM), or Earthly albedo enhancement, and Thermal Radiation Management (TRM) measures designed to increase heat (long wave) radiation off-planet when the Method is deployed at maximum feasible scale. Where quantitative estimates or surrogates are unavailable, qualitative estimates are made.
This is the likely Cost-Effectiveness of the Method. When it can be quantified, it is an estimate of the current US dollar cost per negative watts per square metre ($/(-W/m2)) or the Net Negative Radiative Forcing of all the cooling effects of the Method, wherever they occur on the planet above the base of the marine mixed layer. Provisionally, Red might be >$10a, Yellow $1-10a, and Green <$1a/(-W/m2), where “a” is an appropriate factor changed to reflect the actual likely range of costs. If not readily quantified, then qualitative estimates or guesses are to be made.
Scalability has several different parameters or components, any of which may be or become limiting. One component of scalability is the proportion of the world’s surface or volume that can be used to deploy it. A second is whether there is/could be sufficient raw materials/chemicals, concentrations, available energy, temperature, pressure, space or habitat, and manufacturing capability to deploy it at optimum scale in a useful timeframe. A third is whether the species, diversity and biomass of them are, or could be made sufficient, and sufficiently capable, to carry out their part in the Method. This includes humanity, its robotic helpers, laws/regulations, agreements/conventions, finances, and politicosocioeconomic practices. A fourth is whether there is, or could be constructed, whatever is required in the way of software, AI/algorithms, datastores, supporting technologies, and communications necessary for optimal scalability. A fifth is a requirement for modicum of peace&security, health, civil order, and cooperation needed for the scalability to be achieved and maintained, together with limits to food, environmental and social stresses in key populations.
This relates to how quickly the Method could be researched, developed, deployed globally, and take substantial effect - noting that many Methods will typically have some effects, both positive and negative, that are delayed by years or longer. Initially, and for a crash or moonshot program (though with existential urgency, funding, and possibly widespread participation), a Green score might have a strongly, net beneficial effect by the deployed Method occurring in <5 years, Yellow in 5-25 years, and Red in >25 years. GATING/REVERSIBILITY: Gating is whether the Method can be tested at increasing scale, whilst learning by doing to address adverse effects or cost. Reversibility relates to whether, and how quickly, a trial can be stopped and/or its effects reversed. Reversibility might be scored thus. Major adverse effects cease or substantially decline within: Green <1 month, Yellow 1- 12 months, Red >1 year.
Gating is whether the Method can be tested at increasing scale, whilst learning by doing to address adverse effects or cost. Reversibility relates to whether, and how quickly, a trial can be stopped and/or its effects reversed. Reversibility might be scored thus. Major adverse effects cease or substantially decline within: Green <1 month, Yellow 1- 12 months, Red >1 year.
Risk is used in the Risk Management or risk impact assessment sense of being compared to what would be likely to happen without the intervention. It deals with probabilities and consequences of risk events if they are realised. It compares the products of the likelihood of the risk occurring within a given time (meaning perhaps millennia for climate risks) and its impact. As climate risk is now an existential one that is now happening, our interest lies in determining quickly which Methods have acceptable risks and ones which do not risk the social acceptance of most other interventions. Green means start gated testing urgently now, Yellow means seek ways to reduce likely adverse aspects, Red means research now, but do not deploy more widely unless equivalent Methods are insufficiently effective at cooling.
This refers to the likelihood that existing forms of governance can be enhanced to satisfy the bulk of the global community of the necessity to deploy the more prospective of the Methods, first at local, then national and then international levels. Extensive community engagement is likely to be required, following proof of concept, and explanations of its likely costs, opportunities and effects. Green = (eventually) potentially acceptable and with little downside, Yellow = has some modest downsides, most of which can be offset. Red = social acceptance is unlikely unless other, comparable Methods fail.
As the Effectiveness criterion refers to the developed and globally-scaled cost of direct cooling by the Method in question, this Cost refers more to the RD&D and capital costs of researching, then deploying it at different scales and in different variants, together with the costs of Measuring, Reporting and Verifying (MRV) the results of using the Method, probably by independent bodies. It also includes insurance and recompense costs and the likely cleanup costs afterwards, together with reductions for any revenues gained, including possible carbon and cooling credits, should they eventuate. Green = likely to be profitable, Yellow = requires modest subsidies for industry and NGO participation, Red = would require extensive and ongoing public subsidy. Source TBD.
A summation of the above scores, using Red = 1, Yellow = 3, and Green = 9. Total possible = 99.
Seaweed Gliders capitalise on the reliability of ocean currents to vertically navigate between the surface and the deep on a daily basis to maximise absorption of sunlight and cool deep nutrients. The device is automatically steered up and down in the water column by a non motorised steering wing which tows a large harvestable kelp array. Depending on the temperature of the water, weather conditions and solar flux, the device can be set at the optimum depth to promote both growth and protect the device. Seaweed Gliders could tap into the unlimited power of ocean currents like the East Australian Current (EAC).
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
Develop-
ment Status
Net Cooling Status Net Carbon Status Feasib-
ility
Effect-
iveness
Scal-
ability
Time-
liness
Gating/ Reversi-
bility
Risk Gover-
nance & Social Accept-
ance
Cost SCORE, sum D:L
1 3 3 3 3 3 3 9 9 9 9 55
This resembles the commonly-used Technical Readiness Level (TRL) classification system, but has three levels, not nine. Moreover, as it will typically include the consideration of several technologies, concepts and information thought useful for the Method, these are rolled into a single, overall measure of technical readiness.
This provides an indication of what is the individual Method’s potential contribution to global cooling at its maximum feasible scale. Its typical measurement unit would be negative watts per square metre (-W/m2).
This roughly coincides with the number of gigatonnes of carbon (GtC/yr) that the Method could be expected to sequester at its maximum scale, from the atmosphere, for a period equal to or greater than a century. GtC for a fraction of a century are reduced by that fraction. For simplicity, the criterion omits consideration of other important greenhouse gases (such as methane) and airborne particulates. A red score indicates a value <1, yellow 1-5, green >5 GtC/yr.
This is a composite measure indicating how achievable is the negative Net Radiative Forcing (equals Global Cooling) that combines the effects of Solar Radiation Management (SRM), or Earthly albedo enhancement, and Thermal Radiation Management (TRM) measures designed to increase heat (long wave) radiation off-planet when the Method is deployed at maximum feasible scale. Where quantitative estimates or surrogates are unavailable, qualitative estimates are made.
This is the likely Cost-Effectiveness of the Method. When it can be quantified, it is an estimate of the current US dollar cost per negative watts per square metre ($/(-W/m2)) or the Net Negative Radiative Forcing of all the cooling effects of the Method, wherever they occur on the planet above the base of the marine mixed layer. Provisionally, Red might be >$10a, Yellow $1-10a, and Green <$1a/(-W/m2), where “a” is an appropriate factor changed to reflect the actual likely range of costs. If not readily quantified, then qualitative estimates or guesses are to be made.
Scalability has several different parameters or components, any of which may be or become limiting. One component of scalability is the proportion of the world’s surface or volume that can be used to deploy it. A second is whether there is/could be sufficient raw materials/chemicals, concentrations, available energy, temperature, pressure, space or habitat, and manufacturing capability to deploy it at optimum scale in a useful timeframe. A third is whether the species, diversity and biomass of them are, or could be made sufficient, and sufficiently capable, to carry out their part in the Method. This includes humanity, its robotic helpers, laws/regulations, agreements/conventions, finances, and politicosocioeconomic practices. A fourth is whether there is, or could be constructed, whatever is required in the way of software, AI/algorithms, datastores, supporting technologies, and communications necessary for optimal scalability. A fifth is a requirement for modicum of peace&security, health, civil order, and cooperation needed for the scalability to be achieved and maintained, together with limits to food, environmental and social stresses in key populations.
This relates to how quickly the Method could be researched, developed, deployed globally, and take substantial effect - noting that many Methods will typically have some effects, both positive and negative, that are delayed by years or longer. Initially, and for a crash or moonshot program (though with existential urgency, funding, and possibly widespread participation), a Green score might have a strongly, net beneficial effect by the deployed Method occurring in <5 years, Yellow in 5-25 years, and Red in >25 years. GATING/REVERSIBILITY: Gating is whether the Method can be tested at increasing scale, whilst learning by doing to address adverse effects or cost. Reversibility relates to whether, and how quickly, a trial can be stopped and/or its effects reversed. Reversibility might be scored thus. Major adverse effects cease or substantially decline within: Green <1 month, Yellow 1- 12 months, Red >1 year.
Gating is whether the Method can be tested at increasing scale, whilst learning by doing to address adverse effects or cost. Reversibility relates to whether, and how quickly, a trial can be stopped and/or its effects reversed. Reversibility might be scored thus. Major adverse effects cease or substantially decline within: Green <1 month, Yellow 1- 12 months, Red >1 year.
Risk is used in the Risk Management or risk impact assessment sense of being compared to what would be likely to happen without the intervention. It deals with probabilities and consequences of risk events if they are realised. It compares the products of the likelihood of the risk occurring within a given time (meaning perhaps millennia for climate risks) and its impact. As climate risk is now an existential one that is now happening, our interest lies in determining quickly which Methods have acceptable risks and ones which do not risk the social acceptance of most other interventions. Green means start gated testing urgently now, Yellow means seek ways to reduce likely adverse aspects, Red means research now, but do not deploy more widely unless equivalent Methods are insufficiently effective at cooling.
This refers to the likelihood that existing forms of governance can be enhanced to satisfy the bulk of the global community of the necessity to deploy the more prospective of the Methods, first at local, then national and then international levels. Extensive community engagement is likely to be required, following proof of concept, and explanations of its likely costs, opportunities and effects. Green = (eventually) potentially acceptable and with little downside, Yellow = has some modest downsides, most of which can be offset. Red = social acceptance is unlikely unless other, comparable Methods fail.
As the Effectiveness criterion refers to the developed and globally-scaled cost of direct cooling by the Method in question, this Cost refers more to the RD&D and capital costs of researching, then deploying it at different scales and in different variants, together with the costs of Measuring, Reporting and Verifying (MRV) the results of using the Method, probably by independent bodies. It also includes insurance and recompense costs and the likely cleanup costs afterwards, together with reductions for any revenues gained, including possible carbon and cooling credits, should they eventuate. Green = likely to be profitable, Yellow = requires modest subsidies for industry and NGO participation, Red = would require extensive and ongoing public subsidy. Source TBD.
A summation of the above scores, using Red = 1, Yellow = 3, and Green = 9. Total possible = 99.
Aircraft designed to disseminate sulphur dioxide gas into the stratosphere, aerosols from which would cool the world by reflecting a portion of sunlight from it.
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
NeedText
Develop-
ment Status
Net Cooling Status Net Carbon Status Feasib-
ility
Effect-
iveness
Scal-
ability
Time-
liness
Gating/ Reversi-
bility
Risk Gover-
nance & Social Accept-
ance
Cost SCORE, sum D:L
3 9 1 9 9 9 9 3 1 1 3 57
This resembles the commonly-used Technical Readiness Level (TRL) classification system, but has three levels, not nine. Moreover, as it will typically include the consideration of several technologies, concepts and information thought useful for the Method, these are rolled into a single, overall measure of technical readiness.
This provides an indication of what is the individual Method’s potential contribution to global cooling at its maximum feasible scale. Its typical measurement unit would be negative watts per square metre (-W/m2).
This roughly coincides with the number of gigatonnes of carbon (GtC/yr) that the Method could be expected to sequester at its maximum scale, from the atmosphere, for a period equal to or greater than a century. GtC for a fraction of a century are reduced by that fraction. For simplicity, the criterion omits consideration of other important greenhouse gases (such as methane) and airborne particulates. A red score indicates a value <1, yellow 1-5, green >5 GtC/yr.
This is a composite measure indicating how achievable is the negative Net Radiative Forcing (equals Global Cooling) that combines the effects of Solar Radiation Management (SRM), or Earthly albedo enhancement, and Thermal Radiation Management (TRM) measures designed to increase heat (long wave) radiation off-planet when the Method is deployed at maximum feasible scale. Where quantitative estimates or surrogates are unavailable, qualitative estimates are made.
This is the likely Cost-Effectiveness of the Method. When it can be quantified, it is an estimate of the current US dollar cost per negative watts per square metre ($/(-W/m2)) or the Net Negative Radiative Forcing of all the cooling effects of the Method, wherever they occur on the planet above the base of the marine mixed layer. Provisionally, Red might be >$10a, Yellow $1-10a, and Green <$1a/(-W/m2), where “a” is an appropriate factor changed to reflect the actual likely range of costs. If not readily quantified, then qualitative estimates or guesses are to be made.
Scalability has several different parameters or components, any of which may be or become limiting. One component of scalability is the proportion of the world’s surface or volume that can be used to deploy it. A second is whether there is/could be sufficient raw materials/chemicals, concentrations, available energy, temperature, pressure, space or habitat, and manufacturing capability to deploy it at optimum scale in a useful timeframe. A third is whether the species, diversity and biomass of them are, or could be made sufficient, and sufficiently capable, to carry out their part in the Method. This includes humanity, its robotic helpers, laws/regulations, agreements/conventions, finances, and politicosocioeconomic practices. A fourth is whether there is, or could be constructed, whatever is required in the way of software, AI/algorithms, datastores, supporting technologies, and communications necessary for optimal scalability. A fifth is a requirement for modicum of peace&security, health, civil order, and cooperation needed for the scalability to be achieved and maintained, together with limits to food, environmental and social stresses in key populations.
This relates to how quickly the Method could be researched, developed, deployed globally, and take substantial effect - noting that many Methods will typically have some effects, both positive and negative, that are delayed by years or longer. Initially, and for a crash or moonshot program (though with existential urgency, funding, and possibly widespread participation), a Green score might have a strongly, net beneficial effect by the deployed Method occurring in <5 years, Yellow in 5-25 years, and Red in >25 years. GATING/REVERSIBILITY: Gating is whether the Method can be tested at increasing scale, whilst learning by doing to address adverse effects or cost. Reversibility relates to whether, and how quickly, a trial can be stopped and/or its effects reversed. Reversibility might be scored thus. Major adverse effects cease or substantially decline within: Green <1 month, Yellow 1- 12 months, Red >1 year.
Gating is whether the Method can be tested at increasing scale, whilst learning by doing to address adverse effects or cost. Reversibility relates to whether, and how quickly, a trial can be stopped and/or its effects reversed. Reversibility might be scored thus. Major adverse effects cease or substantially decline within: Green <1 month, Yellow 1- 12 months, Red >1 year.
Risk is used in the Risk Management or risk impact assessment sense of being compared to what would be likely to happen without the intervention. It deals with probabilities and consequences of risk events if they are realised. It compares the products of the likelihood of the risk occurring within a given time (meaning perhaps millennia for climate risks) and its impact. As climate risk is now an existential one that is now happening, our interest lies in determining quickly which Methods have acceptable risks and ones which do not risk the social acceptance of most other interventions. Green means start gated testing urgently now, Yellow means seek ways to reduce likely adverse aspects, Red means research now, but do not deploy more widely unless equivalent Methods are insufficiently effective at cooling.
This refers to the likelihood that existing forms of governance can be enhanced to satisfy the bulk of the global community of the necessity to deploy the more prospective of the Methods, first at local, then national and then international levels. Extensive community engagement is likely to be required, following proof of concept, and explanations of its likely costs, opportunities and effects. Green = (eventually) potentially acceptable and with little downside, Yellow = has some modest downsides, most of which can be offset. Red = social acceptance is unlikely unless other, comparable Methods fail.
As the Effectiveness criterion refers to the developed and globally-scaled cost of direct cooling by the Method in question, this Cost refers more to the RD&D and capital costs of researching, then deploying it at different scales and in different variants, together with the costs of Measuring, Reporting and Verifying (MRV) the results of using the Method, probably by independent bodies. It also includes insurance and recompense costs and the likely cleanup costs afterwards, together with reductions for any revenues gained, including possible carbon and cooling credits, should they eventuate. Green = likely to be profitable, Yellow = requires modest subsidies for industry and NGO participation, Red = would require extensive and ongoing public subsidy. Source TBD.
A summation of the above scores, using Red = 1, Yellow = 3, and Green = 9. Total possible = 99.