Ocean based algal growth: rate of CO2 transfer
Peter Flynn
I am joining this discussion late, so I hope I am not covering ground already discussed.
Some years back a graduate student and I looked at a conceptual scheme to grow algae and sink them into the deep ocean, using increased salinity from evaporation as the “pump”. We found that the rate limiting step was not sunlight or evaporation, but rather the transport of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere into the ocean. This was, as I recall, 10 times slower than the potential rate of growth of the algae.
We came to understand why agitation and CO2 addition are included in some commercial algal farms.
Peter Flynn
Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.
Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers
Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of Alberta
cell: 928 451 4455
markc...@podenergy.org
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Chris
While deep seawater in the ocean does indeed contain a great deal of nutrients, it also contains high levels of dissolved inorganic carbon derived from the degradation of sinking organic matter generated in surface waters. Thus, bringing deep seawater to the surface will lead to outgassing of CO2 to the atmosphere that would greatly reduce if not eliminate the climate benefits of the schemes as indicated in the papers below:
Dutreuil, S., Bopp, L. and Tagliabue, A. (2009) Impact of enhanced vertical mixing on marine biogeochemistry: Lessons for geo-engineering and natural variability. Biogeosciences Vol. 6, 901-912.
http://www.biogeosciences.net/6/901/2009/bg-6-901-2009.pdf
Oschlies, A., Pahlow, M., Yool, A. and Matear, R. J. (2010) Climate engineering by artificial ocean upwelling - channelling the sorcerer's apprentice Geophysical Research Letters, 37, L04701.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL041961/abstract
Yool, A., Shepherd, J. G., Bryden, H. L. and Oschlies, A. (2009), Low efficiency of nutrient translocation for enhancing oceanic uptake of carbon dioxide, Journal of Geophysical research - Oceans 114, C08009,
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JC004792/abstract
Note also that bringing up deep seawater for other purposes such as Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) and Deep Water Source Cooling/Seawater Air Conditioning has the same problem
Chris.
On Tuesday, 15 January 2013 22:21:14 UTC, Michael Hayes wrote:
Also Peter,The 'Perpetual Salt Fountain' is a great addition to any large scale algae operation."Deep seawater in the ocean contains a great deal of nutrients. Stommel et al. have
proposed the notion of a “perpetual salt fountain” (Stommel et al., 1956). They noted
the possibility of a permanent upwelling of deep seawater with no additional external
energy source. If we can cause deep seawater to upwell extensively, we can achieve an
ocean farm. We have succeeded in measuring the upwelling velocity by an experiment
in the Mariana Trench area using a special measurement system. A 0.3 m diameter,
280 m long soft pipe made of PVC sheet was used in the experiment. The measured
data, a verification experiment, and numerical simulation results, gave an estimate
of upwelling velocity of 212 m/day."I've realized that the basic configuration of the tube can be converted into a large through put 'trash' pump, with minor mods, and powered by wave energy conversion. Deployed on a large scale, this system would significantly increase the microbial loop rate of production and thus produce a carbon sink multiplier for any macro algae farm system (not to mention an increase in marine life at all levels). Deep water C4 plant farms (gyres are lest problematic for production placement) can be scaled up to 'geoengineering' relevance with possible self funding commercial activities. Littoral deployments are possible but the artificial up welling would need a corresponding artifical down welling to prevent dead zones down current from the up welling.Here is a link to a few thoughts Mark and I exchanged some time ago."Mark Capron has proposed Ocean Afforestation within this forum going back to at least 09. And, much of that work is centered around diatom enhancement for general CCS and possible biomass harvesting for methane fuel production and more. C4 halophytes (1) could be an important enhancement to that initial ocean afforestation strategy."I'm glad to see this issue come back up in this group. IMHO, Ocean Afforestation is our best long term hope to stabilize the climate and adjust the ocean pH. Initial math indicated that up to 6% of the earth needed to be put into production to off set current CO2 emissions. Wide spread use of the Perpetual Salt Fountain System may reduce the needed area substantially
.I hope this helped.Michael
Rau, Greg
John Nissen
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/HQZJQCJdd7gJ.
Andrew Lockley
(Victor's?) experiments in the Southern Ocean testing Ocean Iron Fertilization found silicic acid to be a limiting factor. Silica shells are large and thus I expect silicic acid is required in quantities too large to add artificially.
Blooms are eaten or sink quite quickly. There's no need to remove them. It's conceivable that methane could be formed from their decomposition, but this is unlikely to reach the atmosphere. Modelling would assist in testing this assumption. The formation of large -scale clathrate deposits in warming waters would be a concern.
A
Ken Caldeira
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution for Science
Hello all,
Thinks look different if one uses push-pump pumps rather than simply upwelling of nutrients. The upwelled DIC becomes insignificant compared to the DOC pushed down. Some of you may recall this argument from my GLOBAL FEVER book from the Univ of Chicago Press, but the following is an excerpt from my THE GREAT CO2 CLEANUP, chapter six:
Plowing Under a Carbon-fixing Crop
To avoid competing with the world’s food production and supplies of fresh water, most sequestered carbon must come from new biomass grown in new places. Here I explore how paired ocean pumps might uplift nutrients and then sink the new organic carbon back into the ocean depths.
Instead of sinking only the debris that is heavy enough to settle out, as in iron fertilization, we would be using bulk flow to sink the entire organic carbon soup of the wind-mixed layer (organisms plus the hundred-fold larger amounts of dissolved organic carbon) before its carbon reverts to CO2 and equilibrates with the atmosphere.
The CO2 later produced in the depths by the sunken carbon soup will reach the surface 400-6,000 years later. Smearing it out over that period greatly reduces the damaging peaks in ocean acidification and global fever.
...
If we fertilize via pumping up and sink nearby via bulk flow (a push-pull pump), we are essentially burying a carbon-fixing crop, much as farmers plow under a nitrogen-fixing cover crop of legumes to fertilize the soil. Instead of sinking only the debris that is heavy enough, we would be sinking the entire organic carbon soup of the wind-mixed layer.
Algaculture minimizes respiration CO2 from higher up the food chain and so allows a preliminary estimate of the size of our undertaking. Suppose that a midrange 50 g (as dry weight) of algae can be grown each day under a square meter of sunlit surface, and that half is carbon. Thus it takes about 10-4 m2 to grow 1 gC each year. To produce our 30 GtC/yr drawdown would require 30 x 10+11 m2 (0.8% of the ocean surface, about the size of the Caribbean).
But because we pump the surface waters down, not dried algae, we would also be sinking the entire organic carbon soup of the wind-mixed surface layer: the carbon in living cells plus the hundred-fold larger amounts in the surface DOC. Thus the plankton plantations might require only 30 x 10+9 m2 (closer to the size of Lake Michigan).
The space requirement will be more because downpumps will not capture all of the new plankton; it might be less because the relevant algaculture focuses on oil-containing algal species and on harvesting a biofuel crop, not on plowing under the local species as quickly as possible. The ocean pipe spacing, and the volume pumped down, will depend on the outflow needed to optimize the organic carbon production. [The chemostat calculation FYI.] Only field trials are likely to provide a better estimate for the needed size of sink-on-the-spot plankton plantations, pump numbers, and project costs.
Though ocean fertilization is usually proposed for low productivity regions where iron is the limiting nutrient, another strategy is to boost the shoulder seasons in regions of seasonally high ocean productivity. For example, ocean primary productivity northeast of Iceland drops to half by June as the nutrients upwelled by winter winds are depleted. Continuing production then depends on recycling nutrients within the wind-mixed layer. However, to the southwest of Iceland, productivity stays high all summer.
Because not all of the new plankton will be successfully captured and sunk, fertilization will stimulate the marine food chain locally. Most major fisheries have declined in recent decades and, even where sustainable harvesting is practiced, it still results in fish biomass 73% below natural levels. At least for fish of harvestable size, there is niche space going unused.
Locating the new plankton plantations over the outer continental shelves is more likely to supply a complete niche for many fish species, whereas deep-water plantations will lack variety. (The main commercial catch in deep water is tuna.) Also, down-pumping near the shelf edge would deposit the organic carbon in the bottom’s offshore "undertow" stream, carrying it over the cliff onto the Continental Slope into deeper ocean.
Note that pumps would be tethered to the bottom so that the ocean currents are always creating a plume downstream: a plume of fertilizer near the surface and a second plume of carbon soup in the depths. (Pumping up from a different depth than pumping down will prevent the interaction that characterizes the oceanographers’ box models.) While the water might come back around in a thousand years, the plumes for the clean-up will only be about twenty years long and well diluted by that time.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/gD00bcFFIvIJ.
Andrew Lockley
Ken
I disagree, with respect. Transport below the mixed layer is a key limitation on OIF, cited in most evaluation of the technology. Forcing this export seems entirely reasonable. Various passive pump designs (eg from Salter), make this a possibility worthy of detailed modelling. Upwards pumping may be a different matter, but down welling at least seems worth more detailed consideration - esp in conjunction with OIF.
Is there a fully-costed proposal proving that passive down welling with OIF is non-viable? Without that, I'd personally be loathe to rule it out.
A
markc...@podenergy.org
- How are plant nutrients dispersed in order to grow a predominately macroalgal forest? (Microalgae can work, but are likely to require a more energy intensive harvest and are more difficult to anticipate increasing biodiversity.)
- Quantify time and space effects of interrupting ocean plant nutrient cycles as ocean forests are expanded to determine if there should be limits on how fast the ocean forests can be expanded.
Chris
Bill,
I don’t see how your scheme can work, in particular, “using bulk flow to sink the entire organic carbon soup of the wind-mixed layer (organisms plus the hundred-fold larger amounts of dissolved organic carbon) before its carbon reverts to CO2 and equilibrates with the atmosphere”. I don’t see how you can possibly sink by bulk flow more than a very small fraction of the surface mixed layer (and the associated algae, DOC etc) without an unbelievably dense array of devices with intakes at various depths in the mixed layer.
Some other points:
1. Algal blooms generated by fertilization are not continuous but extend over a period of time. They take some time to get started - some 2-5 days in the case of ocean iron fertilisation blooms– and then take a further period of time to build up to a peak – up to 14 days or so in the case of ocean iron fertilisation blooms. Then they collapse! i.e. you cannot continuously pump nutrients up and algae etc down at the same time.
2. Throughout those periods of time, the blooms and the associated water masses will be being dispersed in the mixed layer. Thus, keeping the devices associated with the blooms is likely to be challenging especially since you aim to tether the devices to the seabed!
3. The assumption of 50g algae (dry weight) grown each day under each square meter of sunlit surface seems very high. Assuming a bit less than half of that is carbon, say 22g, then that is some 10-20 times more than the primary productivity of blooms measured in iron fertilization experiments.
4. I don’t understand the statement “Even if no fertilization results from pulling up, the DIC pulled up may be only half of the ~1g/m3 DOC pushed down” as the DIC:DOC ratio in oceanic waters is around 50:1.
5. Given the periods of time mentioned in 1 above, is it likely that little of the pulled up DIC will be released?
Chris Vivian.
On Friday, 18 January 2013 13:43:02 UTC, William H. Calvin wrote:
Ken
Sorry to miss your talk Monday in Seattle; I’m out of town for a while.
I agree with you on the upwelling-only problems—and indeed I have agreed since about 2005 when you gave a nice talk at the ocean acidification workshop in Seattle. My cautions about up-only fertilization are in both my 2008 and 2012 books. So here I am talking only of push-pull ocean pumping. (We physiologists tend to be surrounded by push-pull pumps in the lab, which is likely why I began exploring pushing down at the same time as pulling up.)
Upwelling and downwelling in combination is a different animal than up-only. For example, increasing surface ocean (and thus atmospheric) CO2 by pumping deep water up is a problem that goes away with the addition of simultaneously pushing surface water down. Even if no fertilization results from pulling up, the DIC pulled up may be only half of the ~1g/m3 DOC pushed down. With fertilization, one is pumping down both additional organisms and much more DOC. It’s important to sink this carbon soup before it has a chance to become surface DIC.
My illustrative push-pull scheme is, of course, only an idealized sketch. It will take a Second Manhattan Project of real experts (such as yourself) to get it right. But my sketch does, I think, show that there is class of potential solutions that are possibly big enough (600 GtC), fast enough (20 yr), and secure enough against backsliding (for a millennium) to quality as a climate repair.
Unlike anything else on the table, something like this looks capable of actually reversing the overheating, the acidification, and the thermal expansion portion of sea level rise. It would seem worth exploring.
-Bill wca...@uw.edu
Michael Hayes
Bill,
I don’t see how your scheme can work, in particular, “using bulk flow to sink the entire organic carbon soup of the wind-mixed layer (organisms plus the hundred-fold larger amounts of dissolved organic carbon) before its carbon reverts to CO2 and equilibrates with the atmosphere”. I believe that injecting the surface carbon 'soup' at great enough depth would prevent the conversion to CO2. I'll cite this paper to illustrate my point;
Localized subduction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the Southern Hemisphere oceans; Jean-Baptiste Sallée,Richard J. Matear,Stephen R. Rintoul & Andrew Lenton
Regrettably, this is also a pay-per view paper and I can not point to details relevant to my point. I can only surmise that 'depth' is addressed in the subduction (sequestration) phase of the natural process. Artificial down pumping would mimic that natural subduction/sequestration phase. The isssue of "bulk flow" is addressed below.
I don’t see how you can possibly sink by bulk flow more than a very small fraction of the surface mixed layer (and the associated algae, DOC etc) without an unbelievably dense array of devices with intakes at various depths in the mixed layer. I see this as an economic issue, as opposed to a science, technology or engineering issue. Showing that a Pump Enhanced Marine Carbon Cycling and Sequestration (EMCCS) OAA Installation can produce an attractive profit from producing food, fuel and carbon trading credits, etc. (ad infinitum) would quickly generate a vast demand for the pumps, digesters, etc..
Some other points:
1. Algal blooms generated by fertilization are not continuous but extend over a period of time Continuous artificial algal production is common in large and some small hatchery operations and OAA can, with ease, use such methods. I would also recomend keeping a good supply of indiginious rotifers on hand, in dried form. They take some time to get started - some 2-5 days in the case of ocean iron fertilisation blooms This is not OIF!– and then take a further period of time to build up to a peak – up to 14 days or so in the case of ocean iron fertilisation blooms. Then they collapse! Sounds like rather poor hatchery management to me! i.e. you cannot continuously pump nutrients up and algae etc down at the same time. First, the microbial growth is secondary to the macroalgal cultivation! Second, I believe (and most average hatchery managers would agree) that continuous operations can be carried out. The system would be wave driven (with other RE back-ups) and simultaneous pumping (up/down) can be done for as long as the pumps remain functional.
One of the issues lodged against 'Pipes' is that a sudden shut down....of all pipes.... would create an environmental back lash. Each OAA farm would be independent and the likelihood of all of them turning off.... at one time.... is probably quite remote.
2. Throughout those periods of time, the blooms and the associated water masses will be being dispersed in the mixed layer. Thus, keeping the devices associated with the blooms is likely to be challenging especially since you aim to tether the devices to the seabed! Again, please keep in mind that, the microbial growth is secondary to the macroalgal cultivation!
3. The assumption of 50g algae (dry weight) grown each day under each square meter of sunlit surface seems very high. Assuming a bit less than half of that is carbon, say 22g, then that is some 10-20 times more than the primary productivity of blooms measured in iron fertilization experiments. Again, please keep in mind that, the microbial growth is secondary to the macroalgal cultivation!
4. I don’t understand the statement “Even if no fertilization results from pulling up, the DIC pulled up may be only half of the ~1g/m3 DOC pushed down” as the DIC:DOC ratio in oceanic waters is around 50:1. The only relevant issue is; whether or not the artificially up welled nutrients can fertilize the cultivated macroalgae in oligotrophic waters....and produce a profit? Expanding the oceans' natural CO2 sequestration process, through expanding the nutrient supply out and into oligotrophic waters....in a profitable way...., is the whole point of this Gedankenexperiment.
5. Given the periods of time mentioned in 1 above, is it likely that little of the pulled up DIC will be released? Macroalgal DIC uptake is impressive judging from this paper:
"Use of Macroalgae for marine Biomass Production and CO2 remediation" Gao et al. J.A.P. 1994
Please see page 52, second column, 1st paragraph.
mel.xmu.edu.cn/upload_paper/201155112811-wse806.pdf
Chris, et al., I would like to close by emphesizing the following points:
1) WEC powered pumps are fundimentialy different, in directional ability and volume, than the passive salt fountains (pipes) used in....all.... evaluations of sub thermocline nutrient use, that I have found. Thus, they should be evaluated on their own merit. I welcome links to any (open access) study which has covered WEC powered thermocline pumps used for OAA fertilization.
2) Push/Pull pumping can cycle the involved waters m3 for m3 and inject at any depth desired. Deployment of vast numbers of pumps are possible with a proven and reasonable ROI rate.
3) This proposed Pump Enhanced Marine Carbon Cycling and Sequestration (PEMCCS) OAA method is not a re-hash of OIF!!! I'm calling 'apples and oranges' here.
4) Relitively low cost meta-investigational evaluations can be carried out in natural settings which mimic future (matured) Commercial OAA, i.e. The Sargasso Sea.
5) The profit motive for using this method for non-GE applications can be substantial. Thus, science can lead or follow. Off handed rejection of PEMCCS-OAA, by reconized GE experts, will insure the later. Off shore aquaculture is not against anyone's law.....and....should never be so!
6) Beyond the commercial fishng/aquaculture industry, another non-GE motivator for developing sustainable off shore systems is found in this fledgling group;
The Seasteading Institute
http://www.seasteading.org/?gclid=CNzat8C3_bQCFQLZQgodgUgA6Q
Please, let me know your thoughts.
Michael
Chris Vivian.
On Friday, 18 January 2013 13:43:02 UTC, William H. Calvin wrote:Ken
Sorry to miss your talk Monday in Seattle; I’m out of town for a while.
I agree with you on the upwelling-only problems—and indeed I have agreed since about 2005 when you gave a nice talk at the ocean acidification workshop in Seattle. My cautions about up-only fertilization are in both my 2008 and 2012 books. So here I am talking only of push-pull ocean pumping. (We physiologists tend to be surrounded by push-pull pumps in the lab, which is likely why I began exploring pushing down at the same time as pulling up.)
Upwelling and downwelling in combination is a different animal than up-only. For example, increasing surface ocean (and thus atmospheric) CO2 by pumping deep water up is a problem that goes away with the addition of simultaneously pushing surface water down. Even if no fertilization results from pulling up, the DIC pulled up may be only half of the ~1g/m3 DOC pushed down. With fertilization, one is pumping down both additional organisms and much more DOC. It’s important to sink this carbon soup before it has a chance to become surface DIC.
My illustrative push-pull scheme is, of course, only an idealized sketch. It will take a Second Manhattan Project of real experts (such as yourself) to get it right. But my sketch does, I think, show that there is class of potential solutions that are possibly big enough (600 GtC), fast enough (20 yr), and secure enough against backsliding (for a millennium) to quality as a climate repair.
Unlike anything else on the table, something like this looks capable of actually reversing the overheating, the acidification, and the thermal expansion portion of sea level rise. It would seem worth exploring.
-Bill wca...@uw.edu
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/KJHYR3cQO5AJ.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Chris
Michael,
There has been a fundamental misunderstanding! My comments on Bill Calvin’s posts were on open phytoplankton fertilisation NOT on macroalgal aquaculture that I now see from your posts appears to be what you and Bill are talking about. There was nothing in Bill’s posts to indicate he was talking about macroalagal aquaculture! Is it intended that the macroalgae are enclosed in some sort of structure or are they open to the ocean? I had assumed the latter.
I do have some comments on your responses but I don’t think there is any point in responding until it is clear what sort of scheme we are actually talking about.
Michael Hayes
Strategic path for the development of microalgal bio-diesel in China - August 2010.pdf
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/Eh8EkRl-Es0J.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
RAU greg
From: Michael Hayes <vogle...@gmail.com>
To: geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, January 23, 2013 5:00:01 PM
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Ocean based algal growth: rate of CO2 transfer
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
markc...@podenergy.org
Robert Tulip
To: vogle...@gmail.com; geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, 24 January 2013 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Ocean based algal growth: rate of CO2 transfer
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/Eh8EkRl-Es0J.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mailto:geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Chris
On Thursday, 24 January 2013 00:59:16 UTC, Michael Hayes wrote:
Hi Folks,
Chris, Dr.Calvin's focus on the Push/Pull->Sequestration aspect was an important and practical advancement concerning the general concept. I had been focused upon the practical operational aspects of a sustainable open ocean cultivation system design and his input opened my eyes to the importance to deep pumping. I had only considered the use of down welling within littoral waters to prevent dead zones. Baring anyone finding reference to an earlier description of deep pumping sequestration, I propose that such a pump be named in respect of Dr. Calvin....with his permission.
http://intellectualventureslab.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Salter-Sink-white-paper-300dpi1.pdf
http://www.intellectualventures.com/index.php/insights/archives/the-latest-on-hurricane-suppression
http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/EWTEC%2009/Salter%20Stephen%20A%2020%20GW%20thermal%204.pdf
Atmocean has also had the same idea for some time (http://www.atmocean.com/6.html) and appears to have carried out some testing – search Google for “atmocean hurtricanes” to find references.
Here is a well written analysis of off shore commercial macroalgae production: Marine Estate Research Report, Carbon footprint of seaweed as a biofuelThe Crown Estate manages approximately 50% of the UK foreshore and almost the entire seabed out to the 12 nautical mile limit. Part of its role is to issue leases for commercial aquaculture cultivation operations. Apart from a food source, The Crown Estate sees further commercial potential in using the marine waters around the UK, particularly around Scotland, for cultivating marine biomass in the form of macro-algae (seaweed) for energy purposes.
There are a number of ways to approach large scale open ocean macroalgal cultivation systems architecture. Yet, the most stable end up mimicking a bee hive. I believe Salter Ducks would be highly useful in constructing the barriers and providing both WEC/breakwaters services. Central to each cell would be a digester and down welling (Calvin) pump(s). The barriers would support the up welling pumps.
Thus, the hydraulic/surface flow (in calm seas, mild current) would be directed to the central area of the cell and then pumped to prescribed depth. The greater the number of cells, the greater the stability of the system. However, there are a legion of variables that need to be evaluated for each site.
What depth of injection are you considering? I have no doubt that injecting the surface carbon 'soup' at a great enough depth could prevent any of the carbon returning to the surface for a long period of time but, depending on the physical oceanography of the area, that depth could be several hundred metres or more.
However, you did not address the point I made that was firstly how practically you could sink “the entire organic carbon soup of the wind-mixed layer” and secondly do it before its carbon reverts to CO2 and equilibrates with the atmosphere”.
Localized subduction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the Southern Hemisphere oceans; Jean-Baptiste Sallée,Richard J. Matear,Stephen R. Rintoul & Andrew Lenton
I don’t think you can equate natural subduction to deliberate bulk sinking.
Regrettably, this is also a pay-per view paper and I can not point to details relevant to my point. I can only surmise that 'depth' is addressed in the subduction (sequestration) phase of the natural process. Artificial down pumping would mimic that natural subduction/sequestration phase. The isssue of "bulk flow" is addressed below.
I don’t see how you can possibly sink by bulk flow more than a very small fraction of the surface mixed layer (and the associated algae, DOC etc) without an unbelievably dense array of devices with intakes at various depths in the mixed layer.
I see this as an economic issue, as opposed to a science, technology or engineering issue. Showing that a Pump Enhanced Marine Carbon Cycling and Sequestration (EMCCS) OAA Installation can produce an attractive profit from producing food, fuel and carbon trading credits, etc. (ad infinitum) would quickly generate a vast demand for the pumps, digesters, etc..
My comment was that it was simply impractical to do this bulk sinking as suggested i.e. it is not just an economic issue. You do not answer that point. What is OAA?
Some other points:
Comments 1, 2 and 3 below were predicated on open phytoplankton fertilisation NOT on macroalgal aquaculture so I think we can leave these comments.
1. Algal blooms generated by fertilization are not continuous but extend over a period of time Continuous artificial algal production is common in large and some small hatchery operations and OAA can, with ease, use such methods. I would also recomend keeping a good supply of indiginious rotifers on hand, in dried form. They take some time to get started - some 2-5 days in the case of ocean iron fertilisation blooms This is not OIF!– and then take a further period of time to build up to a peak – up to 14 days or so in the case of ocean iron fertilisation blooms. Then they collapse! Sounds like rather poor hatchery management to me! i.e. you cannot continuously pump nutrients up and algae etc down at the same time. First, the microbial growth is secondary to the macroalgal cultivation! Second, I believe (and most average hatchery managers would agree) that continuous operations can be carried out. The system would be wave driven (with other RE back-ups) and simultaneous pumping (up/down) can be done for as long as the pumps remain functional.
One of the issues lodged against 'Pipes' is that a sudden shut down....of all pipes.... would create an environmental back lash. Each OAA farm would be independent and the likelihood of all of them turning off.... at one time.... is probably quite remote.
2. Throughout those periods of time, the blooms and the associated water masses will be being dispersed in the mixed layer. Thus, keeping the devices associated with the blooms is likely to be challenging especially since you aim to tether the devices to the seabed! Again, please keep in mind that, the microbial growth is secondary to the macroalgal cultivation!
3. The assumption of 50g algae (dry weight) grown each day under each square meter of sunlit surface seems very high. Assuming a bit less than half of that is carbon, say 22g, then that is some 10-20 times more than the primary productivity of blooms measured in iron fertilization experiments. Again, please keep in mind that, the microbial growth is secondary to the macroalgal cultivation!
4. I don’t understand the statement “Even if no fertilization results from pulling up, the DIC pulled up may be only half of the ~1g/m3 DOC pushed down” as the DIC:DOC ratio in oceanic waters is around 50:1. The only relevant issue is; whether or not the artificially up welled nutrients can fertilize the cultivated macroalgae in oligotrophic waters....and produce a profit? Expanding the oceans' natural CO2 sequestration process, through expanding the nutrient supply out and into oligotrophic waters....in a profitable way...., is the whole point of this Gedankenexperiment.
I don't think that "The only relevant issue is... and produce a profit". You have not answered my point that is important from a carbon sequestration point of view.
5. Given the periods of time mentioned in 1 above, is it likely that little of the pulled up DIC will be released? Macroalgal DIC uptake is impressive judging from this paper:
"Use of Macroalgae for marine Biomass Production and CO2 remediation" Gao et al. J.A.P. 1994
Please see page 52, second column, 1st paragraph.
mel.xmu.edu.cn/upload_paper/201155112811-wse806.pdf
I don’t think that the fact that macroalgal uptake is impressive means that significant DIC cannot be released.
Chris, et al., I would like to close by emphesizing the following points:
1) WEC powered pumps are fundimentialy different, in directional ability and volume, than the passive salt fountains (pipes) used in....all.... evaluations of sub thermocline nutrient use, that I have found. Thus, they should be evaluated on their own merit. I welcome links to any (open access) study which has covered WEC powered thermocline pumps used for OAA fertilization.
WEC? Wave Energy Converter? Wave-powered pumps have been the main means that I am aware of that have been proposed for artificial upwelling not artificial salt fountains e.g. Atmocean http://www.atmocean.com/ and Lovelock and Rapley’s paper in Nature in 2007. That was what the papers I referred to previously were commenting on.
2) Push/Pull pumping can cycle the involved waters m3 for m3 and inject at any depth desired. Deployment of vast numbers of pumps are possible with a proven and reasonable ROI rate.
I don’t doubt that in principle Push/Pull pumping can be done. However, I do question the practicality of doing at the scale you appear to be talking about in the open ocean such that you could sink the entire organic carbon soup of the wind-mixed layer and do it before its carbon reverts to CO2 and equilibrates with the atmosphere.
3) This proposed Pump Enhanced Marine Carbon Cycling and Sequestration (PEMCCS) OAA method is not a re-hash of OIF!!! I'm calling 'apples and oranges' here.
This confusion was due Bill Calvin’s proposal being unclear.
4) Relitively low cost meta-investigational evaluations can be carried out in natural settings which mimic future (matured) Commercial OAA, i.e. The Sargasso Sea.
Quite possibly.
5) The profit motive for using this method for non-GE applications can be substantial. Thus, science can lead or follow. Off handed rejection of PEMCCS-OAA, by reconized GE experts, will insure the later. Off shore aquaculture is not against anyone's law.....and....should never be so!
I am not rejecting anything offhandedly just questioning the practicality of a still somewhat ill defined proposal. Offshore aquaculture – is this within the EEZ or on the high seas? Within the EEZ it would have to comply with any applicable national laws and relevant parts of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) while on the high seas it will have to comply with UNCLOS.
6) Beyond the commercial fishng/aquaculture industry, another non-GE motivator for developing sustainable off shore systems is found in this fledgling group;
The Seasteading Institute
http://www.seasteading.org/?gclid=CNzat8C3_bQCFQLZQgodgUgA6Q
I know little about this so prefer not to comment.
Michael Hayes
Hi Folks,
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Stephen Salter
The cost of the wave sink is strongly affected by the disposal cost of tyres which provide the main structural element.� Used tyres have a negative cost. � An increase in landfill tax to levels which have been suggested in Europe could make the wave sink system free.
An important difference between upwelling and downwelling is that cold water reaching the surface will be heavier than surface water and will sink rapidly. Warm water pumped down will take much longer to get back.� It will mix with cold water and will spread sideways when the mixture reaches a level of the same temperature.
There are other differences between upwelling and downwelling about the force presented to the waves which are difficult to explain to people with no background in wave energy.� As far as possible the waves must think that they are driving the next bit of sea.� I agree with the need for bidirectional operation but if we do one half nature will eventually do the other.
Having dimensions comparable with a wave length gives valuable force cancellation, better stability especially in pitch and roll and and lower stresses.� Devices in waves should never suffer a stress more than needed to perform their function.� Something which is as floppy as a jellyfish has a much better chance of survival.
It is not easy to handle 100 metre diameter objects with conventional equipment but I have done some work on the design of manufacturing plant.�� A 'factory' to produce one wave sink system a day would cost much less than an international climate conference.
A video of a tank models under test can be downloaded from�� https://www.dropbox.com/sh/c852tpue32fr5iy/nQDRPbSO_p� The longer one shows a 1.2 metre diameter ring pumping water into a black bin bag.� It shows a 1.2 metre diameter ring pumping water into a black bin bag.� The valves shown in the shorter video are far from perfect but allow us to make a crude estimate of water transfer rate.� They also show suction of water in from the downwave side.� There has been no funding.� The student who did the work is now unemployed.
Stephen
-
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195 WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs
On 26/01/2013 00:58, Michael Hayes wrote:
Hi Folks,�I ask that any appearance, by me,�of plagiarizing/ignoring others' work be considered an act of ignorance (guilty)�and bad form (trying to improve) on my part, as opposed to maleficence.�I'm aware of Atmoceans' work and the 'Salter Sink' patent/paper. I did not cite them as I expected others to be well aware of them. When I referred to a "pump", I expected that the paper, submitted by Atmocean, would be referred to. I apologize for the lack of rigor.��The core difference in what I'm conceptually working towards, as opposed to prior art,�is more along the lines of economics (means to pay for�it)�than invention. The Salter Sink is foundational work! And, Atmoceans' much smaller pump concept offers ease of transitioning from extremely small scale use�to large scale (up to the scale of the Salter Sink).�The economics of bringing�the Salter Sink�up to GE scale seems to mainly rely upon rather empty national coffers and/or�that of philanthropy and/or a disjointed fledgling carbon trading markets. Atmoceans' much smaller scale system can be put to use today for relatively meager sums.�I'm trying to offer the view that there may be significant socio-economic benefits to focusing upon the use of small pumps to generate foundational interest in a workable ocean based GE system.�Which in turn,....�may...generate�interest in, and financial support for,�the use of�large scale�designs, such as the Salter Sink Array(s).�In my view, it is not either one or the other, but first one then the other. ��On the point of my belief that Dr. Calvin offered a qualitative�improvement�ie.�injection to the point of long term sequestration, I'll illustrate my point in this way:
Injecting just below the thermocline, in some border line littoral environments, will only sequester until the next storm. Injecting into a deep trench, however,�will sequester for geological time. Also, I can loosely imply that GW�can be solved with Ocean Algae Afforestation (OAA). Yet, without reducing it to practical terms, I've made no qualitative improvement.��
If I'm off the mark with this view, I extend my personal apologies to Dr. Calvin for involving him.
�Moving on....�Robert Tulip, I agree that putting�engineering/design effort into maximizing�microalgal growth is well worth the effort.�Large investments have been put into finding�'super'�microalgae to supply biofuel. One�reasonable alternative, to that ongoing�R&D effort, is to simply beef up the�production volume of the microbials on hand. The open ocean obviously provides ample room and proper environment for that approach. The eventual(?) development of a super microalgae can easily use any production capacity built for the�non-super algae.�
Also, you bring up an important, yet simple observation! The up welling pumps' exhaust can be vectored through a marine microalgal enriched enclosure to maximize the nutrient up take and thus growth rate. Even a small change, in an operational design aspect like that, at this point, can change the math in significant ways! Thanks.
�Mark Capron, ��I appreciate your clarity:�"We need a dynamic analysis to know what happens with upwelling as a way to supply nutrients to a macroalgae forest. During daylight, it appears possible to match the upwelling with the forest density such that the macroalgae consume CO2 or HCO3- with a corresponding increase in pH and more CO2 leaves the atmosphere (in spite of the upwelling).� But we cannot easily turn the upwelling off at night and on during the day."�Atmocean has proposed the use of compressed water to transfer WEC energy to shore. I believe there is little to no problem with using that hydraulic�capacity to turn the pumps on/off and even regulate the flow rate. With enough resources, I see no reason why such control can not be directed from shore or a distant plantation. Constant environmental distant monitoring should be a priority for any large scale deployment.�Also, Atmocean�has done a great deal to get, through self funding,�to where it is and I'm confident that they will�meet most any technical demand the science community asks of them and is willing to pay for.��"The macroalgae may be giving off CO2 at night."�With ample WEC, grow lights are not completely out of the question.�"It is not possible to harvest and recycle all the plant nutrients via the anaerobic digestion step." Some hatchery operations use digester produced�DOM to support continuous�in-house microalgal growth, which in turn, feeds their rotifers. Regulating the microbial growth rate, through regulated use of digester produced DOM,�is an option. Obviously, some may call it a bad option!�
Folks, I'm now up against�the part where I need to try avoiding Chris handing me my head. Thus, I ask for an extension, until next Tuesday, to allow me to arrange my affairs....so to speak.�
Thanks,
Michael �����
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Chris <Chris....@cefas.co.uk> wrote:
Michael,�
See my comments on your last set of responses below in red and further below I have posted some comments to your earlier responses to my responses to Bill Calvin shortly.
�
Chris.
On Thursday, 24 January 2013 00:59:16 UTC, Michael Hayes wrote:
Hi Folks,�Chris, Dr.Calvin's focus on the Push/Pull->Sequestration aspect was an important and practical�advancement�concerning the general concept. I had been focused upon the practical operational aspects of�a sustainable�open ocean cultivation system design and his input�opened my eyes to the importance to deep pumping.�I had only considered the use of down welling within littoral waters to prevent dead zones. Baring anyone finding reference to an earlier description of deep pumping sequestration, I propose that such a pump be named in respect of Dr. Calvin....with his permission.�� Steven Salter has proposed wave-powered downwelling to weaken hurricanes and I believe this has been patented by Intellectual Ventures � see:
�
Atmocean has also had the same idea for some time (http://www.atmocean.com/6.html) �and appears to have carried out some testing � search Google for �atmocean hurtricanes� to find references.
�Here is a well written analysis of off shore commercial macroalgae production: Marine Estate Research Report, Carbon footprint of seaweed as a biofuel���
The Crown Estate manages approximately 50% of the UK foreshore and almost the entire seabed out to the 12 nautical mile limit. Part of its role is to issue leases for commercial aquaculture cultivation operations. Apart from a food source, The Crown Estate sees further commercial potential in using the marine waters around the UK, particularly around Scotland, for cultivating marine biomass in the form of macro-algae (seaweed) for energy purposes.
�The Crown Estate has produced a number of other reports about marine macroalgae that you can find on the same website including one by Cefas (my organisation) titled �Wider ecological implications of Macroalgae culitvation�.�There are a number of ways to approach large scale open ocean�macroalgal cultivation systems architecture.�Yet, the most stable end up mimicking a bee hive. I believe Salter Ducks would be highly useful in constructing the barriers and�providing both WEC/breakwaters services. Central to each cell would be a digester and�down welling (Calvin)�pump(s). The barriers would support the up welling pumps.�When you say �barriers�, do you just mean a surface barrier to break the waves and hold up the upwelling pumps or do you mean a barrier that also supports a flexible wall for each cell? i.e. are the �cells� open to the sea or contained? Do the upwelling pumps just discharge at the surface or do they discharge at various depths in the mixed layer? i.e. are you aiming to mix upwelled water throughout the mixed layer or just introduce it at the surface? If the former, do you aim to have downwelling pump intakes at various depths in the mixed layer or just at the surface?��
Thus, the hydraulic/surface flow (in calm seas, mild current) would be directed to the central area of the cell and then pumped to prescribed depth. The greater the number of cells, the greater the stability of the system. However, there are a legion of variables that need to be evaluated for each site.
�Do you have any concept of the size of the cells � 50, 100, 500 or more metres across? This, together with the flow rates, will be important for the retention time of the upwelled water in the cells and thus the time available for nutrient uptake and outgassing of CO2. �I still don�t see that you can sink more than a very small fraction of the surface mixed layer with your proposal at the same time as upwelling equal amounts of deep ocean water.��Using this basic (and easily replicable) architecture,�small investment groups could�acquire initial cells at minimal cost and build�greater holdings as profits develop.�Thus, the expansion potential is significant in both size and speed. The Seasteading of the open ocean would be much like the early farming development of the U.S. Midwest/West.
In fact, the USDA has a low interest loan of up to $300,000 for new farmers/ranchers. That type of� federal�investment�kickstarting support for a combined Ocean GE/OAA/Seasteading effort would be transformative. As a side note, prize winning tuna now sell for >$1M ea..�Working out the standards�for equipment and operations is relatively straight forward using what we know about Ocean GE, marcoalgel production, aquaculture, commercial fishing gear and vessel safety standards, Admiralty Law, London Convention, etc.�
Chris, you're well informed on the issue of Ocean GE and your thoughts are important to any effort along these lines. Please let me know how you would revise or extend this concept.
�To Robert Tulip, I found your paper on "Strategic path for the development of microalgal bio-diesel in China" highly informative�and well�done. I�hope others take the time to read it:
�"Once production methods are established in coastal waters, it is possible to extend this kind of algae farm in the "desert" areas of the ocean which have very low chlorophyll content. This kind of "desert" is now 50 million square kilometers and expanding in size due to global warming."�As side note, Robert. Do you know that Dr. Salter worked on the original Dracone Barge design? It's the progenitor of your floating�microalgal reactor.�Michael�����
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Chris <Chris....@cefas.co.uk> wrote:
Michael,
�
There has been a fundamental misunderstanding! My comments on Bill Calvin�s posts were on open phytoplankton fertilisation NOT on macroalgal aquaculture that I now see from your posts appears to be what you and Bill are talking about. There was nothing in Bill�s posts to indicate he was talking about macroalagal aquaculture! Is it intended that the macroalgae are enclosed in some sort of structure or are they open to the ocean?� I had assumed the latter.
�
I do have some comments on your responses but I don�t think there is any point in responding until it is clear what sort of scheme we are actually talking about.
�
Chris.
On Wednesday, 23 January 2013 03:53:09 UTC, Michael Hayes wrote:
Hi Folks,�
Chris, the papers you posted were greatly welcomed. Regrettably, 2 of the 3 were pay-per view and I can only surmise the details of those 2.
�In, Dutreuil et al,�Impact of enhanced vertical mixing on marine biogeochemistry: lessons for geo-engineering and natural variability, I found this�rather important�observation:�
"Testing and quantifying the net effect of such a widespread deployment of ocean pipes on atmosphere-ocean fluxes of CO2, as well as the additional perturbations to ocean ecosystems and other climatic gases, in the field would be a significant challenge."
�The authors focused upon just passive pipes in non-macroalgal (dense) environments. Yet still,�the financial challenge in artificially producing�a mature macroalgal forest, solely for a field trial investigation, is beyond reason and their modeling would be interesting to look at.�However, I believe there may be a way around this "significant"�challenge to field observations�of powered pumps.....using the push/pull�method.....in conjunction with....... a� mature macroalgal forest.�The�Sargasso Sea is�a�natural equivalent to a possible future (mature) large scale commercial macroalgal plantation. Different test areas, well separated, could be equipped with the different types of gear�to investigate, in situ, nature's reaction to each configuration.�To quote James Lovelock: "Let's not be pessimistic about the possibilities of pipe or they might never be tried.".���You asked�Dr. Calvin�a few questions that I would like to take a shot at answering. To streamline my responses (please read below), they are in green.��
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 6:07 AM, Chris <Chris....@cefas.co.uk> wrote:
Bill,
�
I don�t see how your scheme can work, in particular, �using bulk flow to sink the entire organic carbon soup of the wind-mixed layer (organisms plus the hundred-fold larger amounts of dissolved organic carbon) before its carbon reverts to CO2 and equilibrates with the atmosphere�. I believe that�injecting the surface carbon 'soup'�at great enough depth would prevent the conversion to CO2. I'll cite this paper to illustrate my point;
�
What depth of injection are you considering? I have no doubt that injecting the surface carbon 'soup' at a great enough depth could prevent any of the carbon returning to the surface for a long period of time but, depending on the physical oceanography of the area, that depth could be several hundred metres or more.
However, you did not address the point I made that was firstly how practically you could sink �the entire organic carbon soup of the wind-mixed layer� and secondly do it �before its carbon reverts to CO2 and equilibrates with the atmosphere�.
�Localized subduction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the Southern Hemisphere oceans; Jean-Baptiste Sall�e,Richard J. Matear,Stephen R. Rintoul & Andrew Lenton
I don�t think you can equate natural subduction to deliberate bulk sinking.��Regrettably, this is also a pay-per view paper and I can not point to details relevant to my point. I can�only surmise that 'depth' is addressed in the subduction (sequestration) phase of the natural process. Artificial down pumping would�mimic that�natural subduction/sequestration phase.�The isssue of "bulk flow" is addressed below.
��
I don�t see how you can possibly sink by bulk flow more than a very small fraction of the surface mixed layer (and the associated algae, DOC etc) without an unbelievably dense array of devices with intakes at various depths in the mixed layer.I see this as an economic issue, as opposed to a science, technology or engineering issue. Showing that a Pump Enhanced Marine Carbon Cycling and Sequestration (EMCCS) OAA Installation can produce an attractive profit from producing food, fuel and carbon trading�credits, etc.�(ad infinitum)�would quickly generate a vast demand for the pumps, digesters, etc..
My comment was that it was simply impractical to do this bulk sinking as suggested i.e. it is not just an economic issue. You do not answer that point. What is OAA?
�
Some other points:
Comments 1, 2 and 3 below were predicated on open phytoplankton fertilisation NOT on macroalgal aquaculture so I think we can leave these comments.
�
1.��� Algal blooms generated by fertilization are not continuous but extend over a period of time Continuous artificial algal production is common in large and some small�hatchery operations and OAA can, with ease, use such methods. I would also recomend keeping a good supply of indiginious rotifers on hand, in dried form. They take some time to get started - some 2-5 days in the case of ocean iron fertilisation blooms This is not OIF!� and then take a further period of time to build up to a peak � up to 14 days or so in the case of ocean iron fertilisation blooms. Then they collapse! Sounds like rather poor hatchery management to me!�i.e. you cannot continuously pump nutrients up and algae etc down at the same time. First, the microbial growth is secondary to the macroalgal cultivation! Second, I�believe (and most average hatchery managers would agree)�that continuous operations can be carried out.�The system would be wave driven (with other RE back-ups) and simultaneous�pumping (up/down) can be done�for as long as the pumps remain functional.
�One of the issues lodged against 'Pipes' is that a sudden shut down....of all pipes....�would create an environmental�back lash. Each OAA�farm would be independent and the likelihood of all of them turning off.... at one time.... is probably quite remote.
�
��2. Throughout those periods of time, the blooms and the associated water masses will be being dispersed in the mixed layer. Thus, keeping the devices associated with the blooms is likely to be challenging especially since you aim to tether the devices to the seabed! �Again, please keep in mind that, the microbial growth is secondary to the macroalgal cultivation!
�
3.��� The assumption of 50g algae (dry weight) grown each day under each square meter of sunlit surface seems very high. Assuming a bit less than half of that is carbon, say 22g, then that is some 10-20 times more than the primary productivity of blooms measured in iron fertilization experiments. Again, please keep in mind that, the microbial growth is secondary to the macroalgal cultivation!
�
4.��� I don�t understand the statement �Even if no fertilization results from pulling up, the DIC pulled up may be only half of the ~1g/m3 DOC pushed down� as the DIC:DOC ratio in oceanic waters is around 50:1. The only relevant issue is; whether or not the artificially up welled nutrients can fertilize the cultivated macroalgae in oligotrophic waters....and produce a profit? Expanding the oceans' natural CO2 sequestration process, through expanding the nutrient supply�out�and into�oligotrophic waters....in a profitable way...., is the whole point of this Gedankenexperiment.
��I don't think that "The only relevant issue is... and produce a profit".�You have not answered my point that is important from a carbon sequestration point of view.
�
5.��� Given the periods of time mentioned in 1 above, is it likely that little of the pulled up DIC will be released? Macroalgal DIC uptake is impressive judging from this paper:
�
"Use of Macroalgae for marine Biomass Production and CO2 remediation" Gao et al. J.A.P. 1994
Please see page 52, second column, 1st paragraph.
I don�t think that the fact that macroalgal uptake is impressive means that significant DIC cannot be released.
�
Chris, et al., I would like to close by emphesizing the following points:
�1) WEC powered pumps are fundimentialy different, in directional ability and volume,�than the passive salt fountains (pipes)�used in....all.... evaluations of sub thermocline nutrient use, that I have found. Thus, they should be evaluated on their own merit.�I welcome links to any (open access) study which has covered WEC powered thermocline pumps used for OAA fertilization.
WEC? Wave Energy Converter? Wave-powered pumps have been the main means that I am aware of that have been proposed for artificial upwelling not artificial salt fountains e.g. Atmocean http://www.atmocean.com/� and Lovelock and Rapley�s paper in Nature in 2007. �That was what the papers I referred to previously were commenting on.
2) Push/Pull pumping can�cycle the�involved waters m3 for m3 and inject at any depth desired.�Deployment of vast numbers of pumps are possible with a proven and reasonable ROI rate.
I don�t doubt that in principle Push/Pull pumping can be done. However, I do question the practicality of doing at the scale you appear to be talking about in the open ocean such that you could sink the entire organic carbon soup of the wind-mixed layer and do it before its carbon reverts to CO2 and equilibrates with the atmosphere.
�3) �This proposed Pump Enhanced Marine Carbon Cycling and Sequestration (PEMCCS) OAA�method is not a re-hash of OIF!!! I'm calling 'apples and oranges' here.�
This confusion was due Bill Calvin�s proposal being unclear.
�
4) Relitively low cost meta-investigational evaluations can be carried out in natural settings which mimic future�(matured) Commercial OAA, i.e. The Sargasso Sea.
Quite possibly.
�
5) The profit motive for using this method for non-GE applications can be substantial. Thus, science can lead or follow.�Off handed�rejection of PEMCCS-OAA, by reconized GE experts, will insure the later. Off shore aquaculture is not against anyone's law.....and....should never be so!
I am not rejecting anything offhandedly just questioning the practicality of a still somewhat ill defined proposal. Offshore aquaculture � is this within the EEZ or on the high seas? Within the EEZ it would have to comply with any applicable national laws and relevant parts of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) while on the high seas it will have to comply with UNCLOS.
�
6) Beyond the commercial fishng/aquaculture industry, another non-GE motivator for developing sustainable off shore systems is found in this fledgling group;
�
The Seasteading Institute
�http://www.seasteading.org/?gclid=CNzat8C3_bQCFQLZQgodgUgA6Q�
I know little about this so prefer not to comment.�
�
Please, let me know your thoughts.
�
Michael
�����
�
��
Chris Vivian.
On Friday, 18 January 2013 13:43:02 UTC, William H. Calvin wrote:
Ken
Sorry to miss your talk Monday in Seattle; I�m out of town for a while.
I agree with you on the upwelling-only problems�and indeed I have agreed since about 2005 when you gave a nice talk at the ocean acidification workshop in Seattle. My cautions about up-only fertilization are in both my 2008 and 2012 books. So here I am talking only of push-pull ocean pumping. (We physiologists tend to be surrounded by push-pull pumps in the lab, which is likely why I began exploring pushing down at the same time as pulling up.)
Upwelling and downwelling in combination is a different animal than up-only. For example, increasing surface ocean (and thus atmospheric) CO2 by pumping deep water up is a problem that goes away with the addition of simultaneously pushing surface water down. Even if no fertilization results from pulling up, the DIC pulled up may be only half of the ~1g/m3 DOC pushed down. With fertilization, one is pumping down both additional organisms and much more DOC. It�s important to sink this carbon soup before it has a chance to become surface DIC.
My illustrative push-pull scheme is, of course, only an idealized sketch. It will take a Second Manhattan Project of real experts (such as yourself) to get it right. But my sketch does, I think, show that there is class of potential solutions that are possibly big enough (600 GtC), fast enough (20 yr), and secure enough against backsliding (for a millennium) to quality as a climate repair.
Unlike anything else on the table, something like this looks capable of actually reversing the overheating, the acidification, and the thermal expansion portion of sea level rise. It would seem worth exploring.
-Bill � � � � � �wca...@uw.edu
--To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/KJHYR3cQO5AJ.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/Eh8EkRl-Es0J.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
On Thursday, 24 January 2013 00:59:16 UTC, Michael Hayes wrote:
Hi Folks,�Chris, Dr.Calvin's focus on the Push/Pull->Sequestration aspect was an important and practical�advancement�concerning the general concept. I had been focused upon the practical operational aspects of�a sustainable�open ocean cultivation system design and his input�opened my eyes to the importance to deep pumping.�I had only considered the use of down welling within littoral waters to prevent dead zones. Baring anyone finding reference to an earlier description of deep pumping sequestration, I propose that such a pump be named in respect of Dr. Calvin....with his permission.�Here is a well written analysis of off shore commercial macroalgae production: Marine Estate Research Report, Carbon footprint of seaweed as a biofuel���
The Crown Estate manages approximately 50% of the UK foreshore and almost the entire seabed out to the 12 nautical mile limit. Part of its role is to issue leases for commercial aquaculture cultivation operations. Apart from a food source, The Crown Estate sees further commercial potential in using the marine waters around the UK, particularly around Scotland, for cultivating marine biomass in the form of macro-algae (seaweed) for energy purposes.
�There are a number of ways to approach large scale open ocean�macroalgal cultivation systems architecture.�Yet, the most stable end up mimicking a bee hive. I believe Salter Ducks would be highly useful in constructing the barriers and�providing both WEC/breakwaters services. Central to each cell would be a digester and�down welling (Calvin)�pump(s). The barriers would support the up welling pumps.�
Thus, the hydraulic/surface flow (in calm seas, mild current) would be directed to the central area of the cell and then pumped to prescribed depth. The greater the number of cells, the greater the stability of the system. However, there are a legion of variables that need to be evaluated for each site.
�Using this basic (and easily replicable) architecture,�small investment groups could�acquire initial cells at minimal cost and build�greater holdings as profits develop.�Thus, the expansion potential is significant in both size and speed. The Seasteading of the open ocean would be much like the early farming development of the U.S. Midwest/West.
In fact, the USDA has a low interest loan of up to $300,000 for new farmers/ranchers. That type of� federal�investment�kickstarting support for a combined Ocean GE/OAA/Seasteading effort would be transformative. As a side note, prize winning tuna now sell for >$1M ea..�Working out the standards�for equipment and operations is relatively straight forward using what we know about Ocean GE, marcoalgel production, aquaculture, commercial fishing gear and vessel safety standards, Admiralty Law, London Convention, etc.�
Chris, you're well informed on the issue of Ocean GE and your thoughts are important to any effort along these lines. Please let me know how you would revise or extend this concept.
�To Robert Tulip, I found your paper on "Strategic path for the development of microalgal bio-diesel in China" highly informative�and well�done. I�hope others take the time to read it:
�"Once production methods are established in coastal waters, it is possible to extend this kind of algae farm in the "desert" areas of the ocean which have very low chlorophyll content. This kind of "desert" is now 50 million square kilometers and expanding in size due to global warming."�As side note, Robert. Do you know that Dr. Salter worked on the original Dracone Barge design? It's the progenitor of your floating�microalgal reactor.�Michael�����
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Chris <Chris....@cefas.co.uk> wrote:
Michael,
�
There has been a fundamental misunderstanding! My comments on Bill Calvin�s posts were on open phytoplankton fertilisation NOT on macroalgal aquaculture that I now see from your posts appears to be what you and Bill are talking about. There was nothing in Bill�s posts to indicate he was talking about macroalagal aquaculture! Is it intended that the macroalgae are enclosed in some sort of structure or are they open to the ocean?� I had assumed the latter.
�
I do have some comments on your responses but I don�t think there is any point in responding until it is clear what sort of scheme we are actually talking about.
�
Chris.
On Wednesday, 23 January 2013 03:53:09 UTC, Michael Hayes wrote:
Hi Folks,�
Chris, the papers you posted were greatly welcomed. Regrettably, 2 of the 3 were pay-per view and I can only surmise the details of those 2.
�In, Dutreuil et al,�Impact of enhanced vertical mixing on marine biogeochemistry: lessons for geo-engineering and natural variability, I found this�rather important�observation:�
"Testing and quantifying the net effect of such a widespread deployment of ocean pipes on atmosphere-ocean fluxes of CO2, as well as the additional perturbations to ocean ecosystems and other climatic gases, in the field would be a significant challenge."
�The authors focused upon just passive pipes in non-macroalgal (dense) environments. Yet still,�the financial challenge in artificially producing�a mature macroalgal forest, solely for a field trial investigation, is beyond reason and their modeling would be interesting to look at.�However, I believe there may be a way around this "significant"�challenge to field observations�of powered pumps.....using the push/pull�method.....in conjunction with....... a� mature macroalgal forest.�The�Sargasso Sea is�a�natural equivalent to a possible future (mature) large scale commercial macroalgal plantation. Different test areas, well separated, could be equipped with the different types of gear�to investigate, in situ, nature's reaction to each configuration.�To quote James Lovelock: "Let's not be pessimistic about the possibilities of pipe or they might never be tried.".���You asked�Dr. Calvin�a few questions that I would like to take a shot at answering. To streamline my responses (please read below), they are in green.��
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 6:07 AM, Chris <Chris....@cefas.co.uk> wrote:
Bill,
�
I don�t see how your scheme can work, in particular, �using bulk flow to sink the entire organic carbon soup of the wind-mixed layer (organisms plus the hundred-fold larger amounts of dissolved organic carbon) before its carbon reverts to CO2 and equilibrates with the atmosphere�. I believe that�injecting the surface carbon 'soup'�at great enough depth would prevent the conversion to CO2. I'll cite this paper to illustrate my point;
�
�Localized subduction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the Southern Hemisphere oceans; Jean-Baptiste Sall�e,Richard J. Matear,Stephen R. Rintoul & Andrew Lenton
�Regrettably, this is also a pay-per view paper and I can not point to details relevant to my point. I can�only surmise that 'depth' is addressed in the subduction (sequestration) phase of the natural process. Artificial down pumping would�mimic that�natural subduction/sequestration phase.�The isssue of "bulk flow" is addressed below.
��I don�t see how you can possibly sink by bulk flow more than a very small fraction of the surface mixed layer (and the associated algae, DOC etc) without an unbelievably dense array of devices with intakes at various depths in the mixed layer. I see this as an economic issue, as opposed to a science, technology or engineering issue. Showing that a Pump Enhanced Marine Carbon Cycling and Sequestration (EMCCS) OAA Installation can produce an attractive profit from producing food, fuel and carbon trading�credits, etc.�(ad infinitum)�would quickly generate a vast demand for the pumps, digesters, etc..
�
Some other points:
�
1.��� Algal blooms generated by fertilization are not continuous but extend over a period of time Continuous artificial algal production is common in large and some small�hatchery operations and OAA can, with ease, use such methods. I would also recomend keeping a good supply of indiginious rotifers on hand, in dried form. They take some time to get started - some 2-5 days in the case of ocean iron fertilisation blooms This is not OIF!� and then take a further period of time to build up to a peak � up to 14 days or so in the case of ocean iron fertilisation blooms. Then they collapse! Sounds like rather poor hatchery management to me!�i.e. you cannot continuously pump nutrients up and algae etc down at the same time. First, the microbial growth is secondary to the macroalgal cultivation! Second, I�believe (and most average hatchery managers would agree)�that continuous operations can be carried out.�The system would be wave driven (with other RE back-ups) and simultaneous�pumping (up/down) can be done�for as long as the pumps remain functional.
�One of the issues lodged against 'Pipes' is that a sudden shut down....of all pipes....�would create an environmental�back lash. Each OAA�farm would be independent and the likelihood of all of them turning off.... at one time.... is probably quite remote.
�
��2. Throughout those periods of time, the blooms and the associated water masses will be being dispersed in the mixed layer. Thus, keeping the devices associated with the blooms is likely to be challenging especially since you aim to tether the devices to the seabed! �Again, please keep in mind that, the microbial growth is secondary to the macroalgal cultivation!
�
3.��� The assumption of 50g algae (dry weight) grown each day under each square meter of sunlit surface seems very high. Assuming a bit less than half of that is carbon, say 22g, then that is some 10-20 times more than the primary productivity of blooms measured in iron fertilization experiments. Again, please keep in mind that, the microbial growth is secondary to the macroalgal cultivation!
�
4.��� I don�t understand the statement �Even if no fertilization results from pulling up, the DIC pulled up may be only half of the ~1g/m3 DOC pushed down� as the DIC:DOC ratio in oceanic waters is around 50:1. The only relevant issue is; whether or not the artificially up welled nutrients can fertilize the cultivated macroalgae in oligotrophic waters....and produce a profit? Expanding the oceans' natural CO2 sequestration process, through expanding the nutrient supply�out�and into�oligotrophic waters....in a profitable way...., is the whole point of this Gedankenexperiment.
��
5.��� Given the periods of time mentioned in 1 above, is it likely that little of the pulled up DIC will be released? Macroalgal DIC uptake is impressive judging from this paper:
�
"Use of Macroalgae for marine Biomass Production and CO2 remediation" Gao et al. J.A.P. 1994
Please see page 52, second column, 1st paragraph.
Chris, et al., I would like to close by emphesizing the following points:
�1) WEC powered pumps are fundimentialy different, in directional ability and volume,�than the passive salt fountains (pipes)�used in....all.... evaluations of sub thermocline nutrient use, that I have found. Thus, they should be evaluated on their own merit.�I welcome links to any (open access) study which has covered WEC powered thermocline pumps used for OAA fertilization.
�2) Push/Pull pumping can�cycle the�involved waters m3 for m3 and inject at any depth desired.�Deployment of vast numbers of pumps are possible with a proven and reasonable ROI rate.
�3) �This proposed Pump Enhanced Marine Carbon Cycling and Sequestration (PEMCCS) OAA�method is not a re-hash of OIF!!! I'm calling 'apples and oranges' here.�
�
4) Relitively low cost meta-investigational evaluations can be carried out in natural settings which mimic future�(matured) Commercial OAA, i.e. The Sargasso Sea.
�
5) The profit motive for using this method for non-GE applications can be substantial. Thus, science can lead or follow.�Off handed�rejection of PEMCCS-OAA, by reconized GE experts, will insure the later. Off shore aquaculture is not against anyone's law.....and....should never be so!
�
6) Beyond the commercial fishng/aquaculture industry, another non-GE motivator for developing sustainable off shore systems is found in this fledgling group;
�
The Seasteading Institute
�http://www.seasteading.org/?gclid=CNzat8C3_bQCFQLZQgodgUgA6Q�
�
Please, let me know your thoughts.
�
Michael
�����
�
��
Chris Vivian.
On Friday, 18 January 2013 13:43:02 UTC, William H. Calvin wrote:
Ken
Sorry to miss your talk Monday in Seattle; I�m out of town for a while.
I agree with you on the upwelling-only problems�and indeed I have agreed since about 2005 when you gave a nice talk at the ocean acidification workshop in Seattle. My cautions about up-only fertilization are in both my 2008 and 2012 books. So here I am talking only of push-pull ocean pumping. (We physiologists tend to be surrounded by push-pull pumps in the lab, which is likely why I began exploring pushing down at the same time as pulling up.)
Upwelling and downwelling in combination is a different animal than up-only. For example, increasing surface ocean (and thus atmospheric) CO2 by pumping deep water up is a problem that goes away with the addition of simultaneously pushing surface water down. Even if no fertilization results from pulling up, the DIC pulled up may be only half of the ~1g/m3 DOC pushed down. With fertilization, one is pumping down both additional organisms and much more DOC. It�s important to sink this carbon soup before it has a chance to become surface DIC.
My illustrative push-pull scheme is, of course, only an idealized sketch. It will take a Second Manhattan Project of real experts (such as yourself) to get it right. But my sketch does, I think, show that there is class of potential solutions that are possibly big enough (600 GtC), fast enough (20 yr), and secure enough against backsliding (for a millennium) to quality as a climate repair.
Unlike anything else on the table, something like this looks capable of actually reversing the overheating, the acidification, and the thermal expansion portion of sea level rise. It would seem worth exploring.
-Bill � � � � � �wca...@uw.edu
--To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/KJHYR3cQO5AJ.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/Eh8EkRl-Es0J.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
�
�
--
Michael Hayes�
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
�
�
Michael Hayes
In trying to drill down to specific answers, to the questions you had on the issue of the up welling DIC, I wanted to take a closer look at using contained microalgae 'grow tanks' as a type of bio-filter for DIC. To do this chore, I wanted to look at which species would be best at addressing the overall DIC uptake issue. That effort led me to the following paper on phaeocystis.
Hi All
The cost of the wave sink is strongly affected by the disposal cost of tyres which provide the main structural element. Used tyres have a negative cost. An increase in landfill tax to levels which have been suggested in Europe could make the wave sink system free.
An important difference between upwelling and downwelling is that cold water reaching the surface will be heavier than surface water and will sink rapidly. Warm water pumped down will take much longer to get back. It will mix with cold water and will spread sideways when the mixture reaches a level of the same temperature.
There are other differences between upwelling and downwelling about the force presented to the waves which are difficult to explain to people with no background in wave energy. As far as possible the waves must think that they are driving the next bit of sea. I agree with the need for bidirectional operation but if we do one half nature will eventually do the other.
Having dimensions comparable with a wave length gives valuable force cancellation, better stability especially in pitch and roll and and lower stresses. Devices in waves should never suffer a stress more than needed to perform their function. Something which is as floppy as a jellyfish has a much better chance of survival.
It is not easy to handle 100 metre diameter objects with conventional equipment but I have done some work on the design of manufacturing plant. A 'factory' to produce one wave sink system a day would cost much less than an international climate conference.
A video of a tank models under test can be downloaded from https://www.dropbox.com/sh/c852tpue32fr5iy/nQDRPbSO_p The longer one shows a 1.2 metre diameter ring pumping water into a black bin bag. It shows a 1.2 metre diameter ring pumping water into a black bin bag. The valves shown in the shorter video are far from perfect but allow us to make a crude estimate of water transfer rate. They also show suction of water in from the downwave side. There has been no funding. The student who did the work is now unemployed.
Stephen
-
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195 WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs
On 26/01/2013 00:58, Michael Hayes wrote:
Hi Folks,I ask that any appearance, by me, of plagiarizing/ignoring others' work be considered an act of ignorance (guilty) and bad form (trying to improve) on my part, as opposed to maleficence.
I'm aware of Atmoceans' work and the 'Salter Sink' patent/paper. I did not cite them as I expected others to be well aware of them. When I referred to a "pump", I expected that the paper, submitted by Atmocean, would be referred to. I apologize for the lack of rigor.
The core difference in what I'm conceptually working towards, as opposed to prior art, is more along the lines of economics (means to pay for it) than invention. The Salter Sink is foundational work! And, Atmoceans' much smaller pump concept offers ease of transitioning from extremely small scale use to large scale (up to the scale of the Salter Sink).The economics of bringing the Salter Sink up to GE scale seems to mainly rely upon rather empty national coffers and/or that of philanthropy and/or a disjointed fledgling carbon trading markets. Atmoceans' much smaller scale system can be put to use today for relatively meager sums.
I'm trying to offer the view that there may be significant socio-economic benefits to focusing upon the use of small pumps to generate foundational interest in a workable ocean based GE system. Which in turn,.... may...generate interest in, and financial support for, the use of large scale designs, such as the Salter Sink Array(s).
In my view, it is not either one or the other, but first one then the other.
On the point of my belief that Dr. Calvin offered a qualitative improvement ie. injection to the point of long term sequestration, I'll illustrate my point in this way:
Injecting just below the thermocline, in some border line littoral environments, will only sequester until the next storm. Injecting into a deep trench, however, will sequester for geological time. Also, I can loosely imply that GW can be solved with Ocean Algae Afforestation (OAA). Yet, without reducing it to practical terms, I've made no qualitative improvement.
If I'm off the mark with this view, I extend my personal apologies to Dr. Calvin for involving him.
Moving on....Robert Tulip, I agree that putting engineering/design effort into maximizing microalgal growth is well worth the effort. Large investments have been put into finding 'super' microalgae to supply biofuel. One reasonable alternative, to that ongoing R&D effort, is to simply beef up the production volume of the microbials on hand. The open ocean obviously provides ample room and proper environment for that approach. The eventual(?) development of a super microalgae can easily use any production capacity built for the non-super algae.
Also, you bring up an important, yet simple observation! The up welling pumps' exhaust can be vectored through a marine microalgal enriched enclosure to maximize the nutrient up take and thus growth rate. Even a small change, in an operational design aspect like that, at this point, can change the math in significant ways! Thanks.
Mark Capron, I appreciate your clarity:"We need a dynamic analysis to know what happens with upwelling as a way to supply nutrients to a macroalgae forest. During daylight, it appears possible to match the upwelling with the forest density such that the macroalgae consume CO2 or HCO3- with a corresponding increase in pH and more CO2 leaves the atmosphere (in spite of the upwelling). But we cannot easily turn the upwelling off at night and on during the day." Atmocean has proposed the use of compressed water to transfer WEC energy to shore. I believe there is little to no problem with using that hydraulic capacity to turn the pumps on/off and even regulate the flow rate. With enough resources, I see no reason why such control can not be directed from shore or a distant plantation. Constant environmental distant monitoring should be a priority for any large scale deployment.Also, Atmocean has done a great deal to get, through self funding, to where it is and I'm confident that they will meet most any technical demand the science community asks of them and is willing to pay for. "The macroalgae may be giving off CO2 at night." With ample WEC, grow lights are not completely out of the question.
"It is not possible to harvest and recycle all the plant nutrients via the anaerobic digestion step." Some hatchery operations use digester produced DOM to support continuous in-house microalgal growth, which in turn, feeds their rotifers. Regulating the microbial growth rate, through regulated use of digester produced DOM, is an option. Obviously, some may call it a bad option!
Folks, I'm now up against the part where I need to try avoiding Chris handing me my head. Thus, I ask for an extension, until next Tuesday, to allow me to arrange my affairs....so to speak.
Thanks,
Michael
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 8:53 AM, Chris <Chris....@cefas.co.uk> wrote:
Michael,
See my comments on your last set of responses below in red and further below I have posted some comments to your earlier responses to my responses to Bill Calvin shortly.
Chris.
On Thursday, 24 January 2013 00:59:16 UTC, Michael Hayes wrote:
Hi Folks,Chris, Dr.Calvin's focus on the Push/Pull->Sequestration aspect was an important and practical advancement concerning the general concept. I had been focused upon the practical operational aspects of a sustainable open ocean cultivation system design and his input opened my eyes to the importance to deep pumping. I had only considered the use of down welling within littoral waters to prevent dead zones. Baring anyone finding reference to an earlier description of deep pumping sequestration, I propose that such a pump be named in respect of Dr. Calvin....with his permission.Steven Salter has proposed wave-powered downwelling to weaken hurricanes and I believe this has been patented by Intellectual Ventures – see:
Atmocean has also had the same idea for some time (http://www.atmocean.com/6.html) and appears to have carried out some testing – search Google for “atmocean hurtricanes” to find references.
Here is a well written analysis of off shore commercial macroalgae production: Marine Estate Research Report, Carbon footprint of seaweed as a biofuel
The Crown Estate manages approximately 50% of the UK foreshore and almost the entire seabed out to the 12 nautical mile limit. Part of its role is to issue leases for commercial aquaculture cultivation operations. Apart from a food source, The Crown Estate sees further commercial potential in using the marine waters around the UK, particularly around Scotland, for cultivating marine biomass in the form of macro-algae (seaweed) for energy purposes.
The Crown Estate has produced a number of other reports about marine macroalgae that you can find on the same website including one by Cefas (my organisation) titled ‘Wider ecological implications of Macroalgae culitvation’.There are a number of ways to approach large scale open ocean macroalgal cultivation systems architecture. Yet, the most stable end up mimicking a bee hive. I believe Salter Ducks would be highly useful in constructing the barriers and providing both WEC/breakwaters services. Central to each cell would be a digester and down welling (Calvin) pump(s). The barriers would support the up welling pumps.When you say “barriers”, do you just mean a surface barrier to break the waves and hold up the upwelling pumps or do you mean a barrier that also supports a flexible wall for each cell? i.e. are the “cells” open to the sea or contained? Do the upwelling pumps just discharge at the surface or do they discharge at various depths in the mixed layer? i.e. are you aiming to mix upwelled water throughout the mixed layer or just introduce it at the surface? If the former, do you aim to have downwelling pump intakes at various depths in the mixed layer or just at the surface?
Thus, the hydraulic/surface flow (in calm seas, mild current) would be directed to the central area of the cell and then pumped to prescribed depth. The greater the number of cells, the greater the stability of the system. However, there are a legion of variables that need to be evaluated for each site.
Do you have any concept of the size of the cells – 50, 100, 500 or more metres across? This, together with the flow rates, will be important for the retention time of the upwelled water in the cells and thus the time available for nutrient uptake and outgassing of CO2. I still don’t see that you can sink more than a very small fraction of the surface mixed layer with your proposal at the same time as upwelling equal amounts of deep ocean water.Using this basic (and easily replicable) architecture, small investment groups could acquire initial cells at minimal cost and build greater holdings as profits develop. Thus, the expansion potential is significant in both size and speed. The Seasteading of the open ocean would be much like the early farming development of the U.S. Midwest/West.
In fact, the USDA has a low interest loan of up to $300,000 for new farmers/ranchers. That type of federal investment kickstarting support for a combined Ocean GE/OAA/Seasteading effort would be transformative. As a side note, prize winning tuna now sell for >$1M ea..Working out the standards for equipment and operations is relatively straight forward using what we know about Ocean GE, marcoalgel production, aquaculture, commercial fishing gear and vessel safety standards, Admiralty Law, London Convention, etc.
Chris, you're well informed on the issue of Ocean GE and your thoughts are important to any effort along these lines. Please let me know how you would revise or extend this concept.
To Robert Tulip, I found your paper on "Strategic path for the development of microalgal bio-diesel in China" highly informative and well done. I hope others take the time to read it:
"Once production methods are established in coastal waters, it is possible to extend this kind of algae farm in the "desert" areas of the ocean which have very low chlorophyll content. This kind of "desert" is now 50 million square kilometers and expanding in size due to global warming."As side note, Robert. Do you know that Dr. Salter worked on the original Dracone Barge design? It's the progenitor of your floating microalgal reactor.Michael
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Chris <Chris....@cefas.co.uk> wrote:
Michael,
There has been a fundamental misunderstanding! My comments on Bill Calvin’s posts were on open phytoplankton fertilisation NOT on macroalgal aquaculture that I now see from your posts appears to be what you and Bill are talking about. There was nothing in Bill’s posts to indicate he was talking about macroalagal aquaculture! Is it intended that the macroalgae are enclosed in some sort of structure or are they open to the ocean? I had assumed the latter.
I do have some comments on your responses but I don’t think there is any point in responding until it is clear what sort of scheme we are actually talking about.
Chris.
On Wednesday, 23 January 2013 03:53:09 UTC, Michael Hayes wrote:
Hi Folks,
Chris, the papers you posted were greatly welcomed. Regrettably, 2 of the 3 were pay-per view and I can only surmise the details of those 2.
In, Dutreuil et al, Impact of enhanced vertical mixing on marine biogeochemistry: lessons for geo-engineering and natural variability, I found this rather important observation:
"Testing and quantifying the net effect of such a widespread deployment of ocean pipes on atmosphere-ocean fluxes of CO2, as well as the additional perturbations to ocean ecosystems and other climatic gases, in the field would be a significant challenge."
The authors focused upon just passive pipes in non-macroalgal (dense) environments. Yet still, the financial challenge in artificially producing a mature macroalgal forest, solely for a field trial investigation, is beyond reason and their modeling would be interesting to look at.However, I believe there may be a way around this "significant" challenge to field observations of powered pumps.....using the push/pull method.....in conjunction with....... a mature macroalgal forest.The Sargasso Sea is a natural equivalent to a possible future (mature) large scale commercial macroalgal plantation. Different test areas, well separated, could be equipped with the different types of gear to investigate, in situ, nature's reaction to each configuration.To quote James Lovelock: "Let's not be pessimistic about the possibilities of pipe or they might never be tried.".
You asked Dr. Calvin a few questions that I would like to take a shot at answering. To streamline my responses (please read below), they are in green.
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 6:07 AM, Chris <Chris....@cefas.co.uk> wrote:
Bill,
I don’t see how your scheme can work, in particular, “using bulk flow to sink the entire organic carbon soup of the wind-mixed layer (organisms plus the hundred-fold larger amounts of dissolved organic carbon) before its carbon reverts to CO2 and equilibrates with the atmosphere”. I believe that injecting the surface carbon 'soup' at great enough depth would prevent the conversion to CO2. I'll cite this paper to illustrate my point;
What depth of injection are you considering? I have no doubt that injecting the surface carbon 'soup' at a great enough depth could prevent any of the carbon returning to the surface for a long period of time but, depending on the physical oceanography of the area, that depth could be several hundred metres or more.
However, you did not address the point I made that was firstly how practically you could sink “the entire organic carbon soup of the wind-mixed layer” and secondly do it before its carbon reverts to CO2 and equilibrates with the atmosphere”.
Localized subduction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the Southern Hemisphere oceans; Jean-Baptiste Sallée,Richard J. Matear,Stephen R. Rintoul & Andrew Lenton
I don’t think you can equate natural subduction to deliberate bulk sinking.
Regrettably, this is also a pay-per view paper and I can not point to details relevant to my point. I can only surmise that 'depth' is addressed in the subduction (sequestration) phase of the natural process. Artificial down pumping would mimic that natural subduction/sequestration phase. The isssue of "bulk flow" is addressed below.
I don’t see how you can possibly sink by bulk flow more than a very small fraction of the surface mixed layer (and the associated algae, DOC etc) without an unbelievably dense array of devices with intakes at various depths in the mixed layer.
I see this as an economic issue, as opposed to a science, technology or engineering issue. Showing that a Pump Enhanced Marine Carbon Cycling and Sequestration (EMCCS) OAA Installation can produce an attractive profit from producing food, fuel and carbon trading credits, etc. (ad infinitum) would quickly generate a vast demand for the pumps, digesters, etc..
My comment was that it was simply impractical to do this bulk sinking as suggested i.e. it is not just an economic issue. You do not answer that point. What is OAA?
Some other points:
Comments 1, 2 and 3 below were predicated on open phytoplankton fertilisation NOT on macroalgal aquaculture so I think we can leave these comments.
1. Algal blooms generated by fertilization are not continuous but extend over a period of time Continuous artificial algal production is common in large and some small hatchery operations and OAA can, with ease, use such methods. I would also recomend keeping a good supply of indiginious rotifers on hand, in dried form. They take some time to get started - some 2-5 days in the case of ocean iron fertilisation blooms This is not OIF!– and then take a further period of time to build up to a peak – up to 14 days or so in the case of ocean iron fertilisation blooms. Then they collapse! Sounds like rather poor hatchery management to me! i.e. you cannot continuously pump nutrients up and algae etc down at the same time. First, the microbial growth is secondary to the macroalgal cultivation! Second, I believe (and most average hatchery managers would agree) that continuous operations can be carried out. The system would be wave driven (with other RE back-ups) and simultaneous pumping (up/down) can be done for as long as the pumps remain functional.
One of the issues lodged against 'Pipes' is that a sudden shut down....of all pipes.... would create an environmental back lash. Each OAA farm would be independent and the likelihood of all of them turning off.... at one time.... is probably quite remote.
2. Throughout those periods of time, the blooms and the associated water masses will be being dispersed in the mixed layer. Thus, keeping the devices associated with the blooms is likely to be challenging especially since you aim to tether the devices to the seabed! Again, please keep in mind that, the microbial growth is secondary to the macroalgal cultivation!
3. The assumption of 50g algae (dry weight) grown each day under each square meter of sunlit surface seems very high. Assuming a bit less than half of that is carbon, say 22g, then that is some 10-20 times more than the primary productivity of blooms measured in iron fertilization experiments. Again, please keep in mind that, the microbial growth is secondary to the macroalgal cultivation!
4. I don’t understand the statement “Even if no fertilization results from pulling up, the DIC pulled up may be only half of the ~1g/m3 DOC pushed down” as the DIC:DOC ratio in oceanic waters is around 50:1. The only relevant issue is; whether or not the artificially up welled nutrients can fertilize the cultivated macroalgae in oligotrophic waters....and produce a profit? Expanding the oceans' natural CO2 sequestration process, through expanding the nutrient supply out and into oligotrophic waters....in a profitable way...., is the whole point of this Gedankenexperiment.
I don't think that "The only relevant issue is... and produce a profit". You have not answered my point that is important from a carbon sequestration point of view.
5. Given the periods of time mentioned in 1 above, is it likely that little of the pulled up DIC will be released? Macroalgal DIC uptake is impressive judging from this paper:
"Use of Macroalgae for marine Biomass Production and CO2 remediation" Gao et al. J.A.P. 1994
Please see page 52, second column, 1st paragraph.
I don’t think that the fact that macroalgal uptake is impressive means that significant DIC cannot be released.
Chris, et al., I would like to close by emphesizing the following points:
1) WEC powered pumps are fundimentialy different, in directional ability and volume, than the passive salt fountains (pipes) used in....all.... evaluations of sub thermocline nutrient use, that I have found. Thus, they should be evaluated on their own merit. I welcome links to any (open access) study which has covered WEC powered thermocline pumps used for OAA fertilization.
WEC? Wave Energy Converter? Wave-powered pumps have been the main means that I am aware of that have been proposed for artificial upwelling not artificial salt fountains e.g. Atmocean http://www.atmocean.com/ and Lovelock and Rapley’s paper in Nature in 2007. That was what the papers I referred to previously were commenting on.
2) Push/Pull pumping can cycle the involved waters m3 for m3 and inject at any depth desired. Deployment of vast numbers of pumps are possible with a proven and reasonable ROI rate.
I don’t doubt that in principle Push/Pull pumping can be done. However, I do question the practicality of doing at the scale you appear to be talking about in the open ocean such that you could sink the entire organic carbon soup of the wind-mixed layer and do it before its carbon reverts to CO2 and equilibrates with the atmosphere.
3) This proposed Pump Enhanced Marine Carbon Cycling and Sequestration (PEMCCS) OAA method is not a re-hash of OIF!!! I'm calling 'apples and oranges' here.
This confusion was due Bill Calvin’s proposal being unclear.
4) Relitively low cost meta-investigational evaluations can be carried out in natural settings which mimic future (matured) Commercial OAA, i.e. The Sargasso Sea.
Quite possibly.
5) The profit motive for using this method for non-GE applications can be substantial. Thus, science can lead or follow. Off handed rejection of PEMCCS-OAA, by reconized GE experts, will insure the later. Off shore aquaculture is not against anyone's law.....and....should never be so!
I am not rejecting anything offhandedly just questioning the practicality of a still somewhat ill defined proposal. Offshore aquaculture – is this within the EEZ or on the high seas? Within the EEZ it would have to comply with any applicable national laws and relevant parts of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) while on the high seas it will have to comply with UNCLOS.
6) Beyond the commercial fishng/aquaculture industry, another non-GE motivator for developing sustainable off shore systems is found in this fledgling group;
The Seasteading Institute
http://www.seasteading.org/?gclid=CNzat8C3_bQCFQLZQgodgUgA6Q
I know little about this so prefer not to comment.
Please, let me know your thoughts.
Michael
Chris Vivian.
On Friday, 18 January 2013 13:43:02 UTC, William H. Calvin wrote:
Ken
Sorry to miss your talk Monday in Seattle; I’m out of town for a while.
I agree with you on the upwelling-only problems—and indeed I have agreed since about 2005 when you gave a nice talk at the ocean acidification workshop in Seattle. My cautions about up-only fertilization are in both my 2008 and 2012 books. So here I am talking only of push-pull ocean pumping. (We physiologists tend to be surrounded by push-pull pumps in the lab, which is likely why I began exploring pushing down at the same time as pulling up.)
Upwelling and downwelling in combination is a different animal than up-only. For example, increasing surface ocean (and thus atmospheric) CO2 by pumping deep water up is a problem that goes away with the addition of simultaneously pushing surface water down. Even if no fertilization results from pulling up, the DIC pulled up may be only half of the ~1g/m3 DOC pushed down. With fertilization, one is pumping down both additional organisms and much more DOC. It’s important to sink this carbon soup before it has a chance to become surface DIC.
My illustrative push-pull scheme is, of course, only an idealized sketch. It will take a Second Manhattan Project of real experts (such as yourself) to get it right. But my sketch does, I think, show that there is class of potential solutions that are possibly big enough (600 GtC), fast enough (20 yr), and secure enough against backsliding (for a millennium) to quality as a climate repair.
Unlike anything else on the table, something like this looks capable of actually reversing the overheating, the acidification, and the thermal expansion portion of sea level rise. It would seem worth exploring.
-Bill wca...@uw.edu
--To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/KJHYR3cQO5AJ.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/Eh8EkRl-Es0J.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
On Thursday, 24 January 2013 00:59:16 UTC, Michael Hayes wrote:
Hi Folks,Chris, Dr.Calvin's focus on the Push/Pull->Sequestration aspect was an important and practical advancement concerning the general concept. I had been focused upon the practical operational aspects of a sustainable open ocean cultivation system design and his input opened my eyes to the importance to deep pumping. I had only considered the use of down welling within littoral waters to prevent dead zones. Baring anyone finding reference to an earlier description of deep pumping sequestration, I propose that such a pump be named in respect of Dr. Calvin....with his permission.
Here is a well written analysis of off shore commercial macroalgae production: Marine Estate Research Report, Carbon footprint of seaweed as a biofuel
The Crown Estate manages approximately 50% of the UK foreshore and almost the entire seabed out to the 12 nautical mile limit. Part of its role is to issue leases for commercial aquaculture cultivation operations. Apart from a food source, The Crown Estate sees further commercial potential in using the marine waters around the UK, particularly around Scotland, for cultivating marine biomass in the form of macro-algae (seaweed) for energy purposes.
There are a number of ways to approach large scale open ocean macroalgal cultivation systems architecture. Yet, the most stable end up mimicking a bee hive. I believe Salter Ducks would be highly useful in constructing the barriers and providing both WEC/breakwaters services. Central to each cell would be a digester and down welling (Calvin) pump(s). The barriers would support the up welling pumps.
Thus, the hydraulic/surface flow (in calm seas, mild current) would be directed to the central area of the cell and then pumped to prescribed depth. The greater the number of cells, the greater the stability of the system. However, there are a legion of variables that need to be evaluated for each site.
Using this basic (and easily replicable) architecture, small investment groups could acquire initial cells at minimal cost and build greater holdings as profits develop. Thus, the expansion potential is significant in both size and speed. The Seasteading of the open ocean would be much like the early farming development of the U.S. Midwest/West.
In fact, the USDA has a low interest loan of up to $300,000 for new farmers/ranchers. That type of federal investment kickstarting support for a combined Ocean GE/OAA/Seasteading effort would be transformative. As a side note, prize winning tuna now sell for >$1M ea..Working out the standards for equipment and operations is relatively straight forward using what we know about Ocean GE, marcoalgel production, aquaculture, commercial fishing gear and vessel safety standards, Admiralty Law, London Convention, etc.
Chris, you're well informed on the issue of Ocean GE and your thoughts are important to any effort along these lines. Please let me know how you would revise or extend this concept.
To Robert Tulip, I found your paper on "Strategic path for the development of microalgal bio-diesel in China" highly informative and well done. I hope others take the time to read it:
"Once production methods are established in coastal waters, it is possible to extend this kind of algae farm in the "desert" areas of the ocean which have very low chlorophyll content. This kind of "desert" is now 50 million square kilometers and expanding in size due to global warming."As side note, Robert. Do you know that Dr. Salter worked on the original Dracone Barge design? It's the progenitor of your floating microalgal reactor.Michael
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Chris <Chris....@cefas.co.uk> wrote:
Michael,
There has been a fundamental misunderstanding! My comments on Bill Calvin’s posts were on open phytoplankton fertilisation NOT on macroalgal aquaculture that I now see from your posts appears to be what you and Bill are talking about. There was nothing in Bill’s posts to indicate he was talking about macroalagal aquaculture! Is it intended that the macroalgae are enclosed in some sort of structure or are they open to the ocean? I had assumed the latter.
I do have some comments on your responses but I don’t think there is any point in responding until it is clear what sort of scheme we are actually talking about.
Chris.
On Wednesday, 23 January 2013 03:53:09 UTC, Michael Hayes wrote:
Hi Folks,
Chris, the papers you posted were greatly welcomed. Regrettably, 2 of the 3 were pay-per view and I can only surmise the details of those 2.
In, Dutreuil et al, Impact of enhanced vertical mixing on marine biogeochemistry: lessons for geo-engineering and natural variability, I found this rather important observation:
"Testing and quantifying the net effect of such a widespread deployment of ocean pipes on atmosphere-ocean fluxes of CO2, as well as the additional perturbations to ocean ecosystems and other climatic gases, in the field would be a significant challenge."
The authors focused upon just passive pipes in non-macroalgal (dense) environments. Yet still, the financial challenge in artificially producing a mature macroalgal forest, solely for a field trial investigation, is beyond reason and their modeling would be interesting to look at.However, I believe there may be a way around this "significant" challenge to field observations of powered pumps.....using the push/pull method.....in conjunction with....... a mature macroalgal forest.The Sargasso Sea is a natural equivalent to a possible future (mature) large scale commercial macroalgal plantation. Different test areas, well separated, could be equipped with the different types of gear to investigate, in situ, nature's reaction to each configuration.To quote James Lovelock: "Let's not be pessimistic about the possibilities of pipe or they might never be tried.".
You asked Dr. Calvin a few questions that I would like to take a shot at answering. To streamline my responses (please read below), they are in green.
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 6:07 AM, Chris <Chris....@cefas.co.uk> wrote:
Bill,
I don’t see how your scheme can work, in particular, “using bulk flow to sink the entire organic carbon soup of the wind-mixed layer (organisms plus the hundred-fold larger amounts of dissolved organic carbon) before its carbon reverts to CO2 and equilibrates with the atmosphere”. I believe that injecting the surface carbon 'soup' at great enough depth would prevent the conversion to CO2. I'll cite this paper to illustrate my point;
Localized subduction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the Southern Hemisphere oceans; Jean-Baptiste Sallée,Richard J. Matear,Stephen R. Rintoul & Andrew Lenton
Regrettably, this is also a pay-per view paper and I can not point to details relevant to my point. I can only surmise that 'depth' is addressed in the subduction (sequestration) phase of the natural process. Artificial down pumping would mimic that natural subduction/sequestration phase. The isssue of "bulk flow" is addressed below.
I don’t see how you can possibly sink by bulk flow more than a very small fraction of the surface mixed layer (and the associated algae, DOC etc) without an unbelievably dense array of devices with intakes at various depths in the mixed layer. I see this as an economic issue, as opposed to a science, technology or engineering issue. Showing that a Pump Enhanced Marine Carbon Cycling and Sequestration (EMCCS) OAA Installation can produce an attractive profit from producing food, fuel and carbon trading credits, etc. (ad infinitum) would quickly generate a vast demand for the pumps, digesters, etc..
Some other points:
1. Algal blooms generated by fertilization are not continuous but extend over a period of time Continuous artificial algal production is common in large and some small hatchery operations and OAA can, with ease, use such methods. I would also recomend keeping a good supply of indiginious rotifers on hand, in dried form. They take some time to get started - some 2-5 days in the case of ocean iron fertilisation blooms This is not OIF!– and then take a further period of time to build up to a peak – up to 14 days or so in the case of ocean iron fertilisation blooms. Then they collapse! Sounds like rather poor hatchery management to me! i.e. you cannot continuously pump nutrients up and algae etc down at the same time. First, the microbial growth is secondary to the macroalgal cultivation! Second, I believe (and most average hatchery managers would agree) that continuous operations can be carried out. The system would be wave driven (with other RE back-ups) and simultaneous pumping (up/down) can be done for as long as the pumps remain functional.
One of the issues lodged against 'Pipes' is that a sudden shut down....of all pipes.... would create an environmental back lash. Each OAA farm would be independent and the likelihood of all of them turning off.... at one time.... is probably quite remote.
2. Throughout those periods of time, the blooms and the associated water masses will be being dispersed in the mixed layer. Thus, keeping the devices associated with the blooms is likely to be challenging especially since you aim to tether the devices to the seabed! Again, please keep in mind that, the microbial growth is secondary to the macroalgal cultivation!
3. The assumption of 50g algae (dry weight) grown each day under each square meter of sunlit surface seems very high. Assuming a bit less than half of that is carbon, say 22g, then that is some 10-20 times more than the primary productivity of blooms measured in iron fertilization experiments. Again, please keep in mind that, the microbial growth is secondary to the macroalgal cultivation!
4. I don’t understand the statement “Even if no fertilization results from pulling up, the DIC pulled up may be only half of the ~1g/m3 DOC pushed down” as the DIC:DOC ratio in oceanic waters is around 50:1. The only relevant issue is; whether or not the artificially up welled nutrients can fertilize the cultivated macroalgae in oligotrophic waters....and produce a profit? Expanding the oceans' natural CO2 sequestration process, through expanding the nutrient supply out and into oligotrophic waters....in a profitable way...., is the whole point of this Gedankenexperiment.
5. Given the periods of time mentioned in 1 above, is it likely that little of the pulled up DIC will be released? Macroalgal DIC uptake is impressive judging from this paper:
"Use of Macroalgae for marine Biomass Production and CO2 remediation" Gao et al. J.A.P. 1994
Please see page 52, second column, 1st paragraph.
Chris, et al., I would like to close by emphesizing the following points:
1) WEC powered pumps are fundimentialy different, in directional ability and volume, than the passive salt fountains (pipes) used in....all.... evaluations of sub thermocline nutrient use, that I have found. Thus, they should be evaluated on their own merit. I welcome links to any (open access) study which has covered WEC powered thermocline pumps used for OAA fertilization.
2) Push/Pull pumping can cycle the involved waters m3 for m3 and inject at any depth desired. Deployment of vast numbers of pumps are possible with a proven and reasonable ROI rate.
3) This proposed Pump Enhanced Marine Carbon Cycling and Sequestration (PEMCCS) OAA method is not a re-hash of OIF!!! I'm calling 'apples and oranges' here.
4) Relitively low cost meta-investigational evaluations can be carried out in natural settings which mimic future (matured) Commercial OAA, i.e. The Sargasso Sea.
5) The profit motive for using this method for non-GE applications can be substantial. Thus, science can lead or follow. Off handed rejection of PEMCCS-OAA, by reconized GE experts, will insure the later. Off shore aquaculture is not against anyone's law.....and....should never be so!
6) Beyond the commercial fishng/aquaculture industry, another non-GE motivator for developing sustainable off shore systems is found in this fledgling group;
The Seasteading Institute
http://www.seasteading.org/?gclid=CNzat8C3_bQCFQLZQgodgUgA6Q
Please, let me know your thoughts.
Michael
Chris Vivian.
On Friday, 18 January 2013 13:43:02 UTC, William H. Calvin wrote:
Ken
Sorry to miss your talk Monday in Seattle; I’m out of town for a while.
I agree with you on the upwelling-only problems—and indeed I have agreed since about 2005 when you gave a nice talk at the ocean acidification workshop in Seattle. My cautions about up-only fertilization are in both my 2008 and 2012 books. So here I am talking only of push-pull ocean pumping. (We physiologists tend to be surrounded by push-pull pumps in the lab, which is likely why I began exploring pushing down at the same time as pulling up.)
Upwelling and downwelling in combination is a different animal than up-only. For example, increasing surface ocean (and thus atmospheric) CO2 by pumping deep water up is a problem that goes away with the addition of simultaneously pushing surface water down. Even if no fertilization results from pulling up, the DIC pulled up may be only half of the ~1g/m3 DOC pushed down. With fertilization, one is pumping down both additional organisms and much more DOC. It’s important to sink this carbon soup before it has a chance to become surface DIC.
My illustrative push-pull scheme is, of course, only an idealized sketch. It will take a Second Manhattan Project of real experts (such as yourself) to get it right. But my sketch does, I think, show that there is class of potential solutions that are possibly big enough (600 GtC), fast enough (20 yr), and secure enough against backsliding (for a millennium) to quality as a climate repair.
Unlike anything else on the table, something like this looks capable of actually reversing the overheating, the acidification, and the thermal expansion portion of sea level rise. It would seem worth exploring.
-Bill wca...@uw.edu
--To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/KJHYR3cQO5AJ.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/Eh8EkRl-Es0J.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
--
Michael Hayes
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
-
The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.