Electrical Sector GHG Reduction and the IMBECS Protocol by Marine BECCS

Along with marine a land bases CCS program would be beneficial. A proposal outlining such an approach is available. Following is a link to such a proposal. https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1300103/planId/1310401 This would bolster the efforts directed at finding workable solution to climate change..

Hello Michael, Please see my Brief reply and Full reply below that. Thank you Brief reply: Please see my ++responses below++ "Dr. Matthew J. Moynihan is correct on all counts (++ He has conflated heat with temperature. He cannot therefore be correct on all counts). Reflecting heat does not enhance heat....in any way shape or form (++ if that were true, solar-thermal rockets would not have been considered [1] and solar-thermal power plants would not use parabolic reflectors [2] to concentrate and exploit the warm sunlight in which we bathe, into an intense focused beam. Heat radiated from the sun is not exclusively infra-red or visible, it is merely the thermal energy released by the sun due to its temperature... and it is routinely focused Michael ++). Full reply: Hello Michael, How are you? I've not heard from you since our emails. I believe the last one was on 27th May. Please check your inbox; I've been awaiting your response regarding collaborative bio-fuel research as alluded to in your earlier comments. In regards to your previous comment (25) on the following page https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1301413/planId/1316801/tab/COMMENTS. Please read carefully the preceding comment (24) "enthalpiq Jun. 01, 2015". You seem to share Dr. Matthew J. Moynihan's pitfall in conflating "heat" with "temperature". "Heat" is a form of energy whereas "temperature" is related to the energy per atom within a certain system. This nuance allows temperature to be increased (as in a heat-pump) although unavoidably losing heat in the process. An increase in temperature will increase a heat-engine's efficiency... but of course; this is explained above and in my description tab. https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1301413/phaseId/1306764/planId/1316801 Allow me to give you a further example here in the comments tab... At room temperature; hydrogen or helium molecules or atoms travel at very high speeds. Therefore the temperature of a power plant would allow said particles to travel at even greater speeds. According to rocket science, the payload of a rocket propelled by propellant (in this case hydrogen or helium gas) may travel at comparable speeds by recoil. Payload speed change ~ propellant exhaust velocity. The reflectors merely direct heat otherwise wasted from a power plant's heat source towards tiny grains of dust or ice to allow them to accelerate by releasing hydrogen or helium gas. The grain remnants eventually accelerate to comparable speeds as the hydrogen or helium atoms or molecules; however, the grains are of higher molecular or atomic mass. Upon impact, the kinetic energy of each grain remnant atom or molecule exceeds that of any single typical propellant atom or molecule. This is because a number of propellant (hydrogen or helium) molecules or atoms have contributed to the acceleration of EACH heavier grain remnant atom or molecule. "The Saturn V payload traveled at comparable speeds to the hydrogen that propelled it; yet said payload was made of heavier atoms than hydrogen!" Upon impact, the dust remnant payload (macroscopic particle) converts its ACQUIRED kinetic energy into internal energy. In this way; the post-collision heavier remnant atoms and molecules (although driven by, and travelling at comparable speeds to the hydrogen or helium propellant molecules or atoms) have a higher kinetic energy per atom (and thus... temperature) than the propellant atoms or molecules (and the original power plant heat-source that heated the dust grain to release the propellant to begin with). Of course there will be loses, but the TEEU mark II has less energy transfer stages than TEEU mark I and any loses are offset by the temperature increased efficiency enhancement. I) TEEU in general will allow the low power density and modest-temperature heat source (see the sun; our only functional nuclear reactor's fusion power density) to be more efficiently converted into electricity (See Carnot's engine). This will reduce the required nuclear reaction rate of any distant-future thermonuclear fusion reactor AND reduce the production of radioactive materials. However short-lived their isotopes in comparison with nuclear fission: Elevated background radioactivity is BAD. II) TEEU in general will allow heat, otherwise wasted in power-plants to be stored by upgrading temperatures to synthesis bio-fuels. That is assuming that the stockpiling of methane and hydrogen is safe as methane is a more POWERFUL GREENHOUSE GAS than carbon dioxide, and hydrogen is HIGHLY EXPLOSIVE: The Hindenburg immediately springs to mind. In my humble opinion; we must use the FREE already available fusion energy from the sun by building more solar-thermal plants and sequester the carbon dioxide in the air by planting more trees. The TEEU may reduce the area utilised by solar-thermal power plants and the water required to operate them. The water surplus could be used to nourish trees. Regards, Dimoir Dr M'dimoir Quaw (MPhys., PhD.) [1] http://www.psicorp.com/pdf/library/sr-1228.pdf [2] http://www.quaws.name/product-characteristics