World Cooling Map
rob...@rtulip.net
Friends,
Here are some ideas I have been working on.
This World Cooling Map depicts three possible cooling interventions:
- Large scale ocean-based algae farms floating on the main ocean currents
- Fleets of marine cloud brightening vessels
- Refreezing the North Pole with an ice canal connecting the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans.
These proposals can be developed with a high level of safety. They would immediately cool the ocean, reduce CO2 and methane, increase planetary brightness, protect biodiversity and increase biomass.
The goal is to cut planetary temperature and reduce risks of extreme weather and sea level rise, setting a path toward planetary restoration and climate repair.
The scale of the proposal reflects the necessary magnitude of climate stabilisation, presenting a path to eventually remove hundreds of gigatons of CO2 from the air through simple technology with major economic benefits.
A refrozen Arctic should be a wilderness protected zone. A shipping canal across the Pole can support wilderness protection by paying for refreezing of the whole Arctic. A direct connection between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans through the North Pole can bring immense gains for prosperity and security that should be integrated with climate restoration. Wind and tidal energy can pump seawater above the surface in winter to increase summer ice thickness and extent. The major environmental benefit of refreezing the Arctic Ocean is that turning the pole from dark ocean to white ice in summer will convert it from a heat sink to a reflector, removing a vast amount of heat from the ocean system to outer space. Large positive environmental and climatic impacts of refreezing the Pole arise from restoring the Polar region to its historic ice coverage. Benefits include restoring habitat, stabilising the jet stream, preventing methane release and ending Greenland ice melt.
Ocean based algae production can make biomass on large scale, which can be converted into a range of commodities.
Comment welcome.
Best Regards
Robert Tulip
Anderson, Paul
Robert,
AWESOME!!!
Each of the 3 possible cooling interventions has merit for separate discussions.
Please keep me included in any discussion / work regarding the focus on
Large scale ocean-based algae farms floating on the main ocean currents
I am a retired geography professor. I offer the following contribution:
A. The green dot indicating an Algae farm in the North Atlantic Ocean is either too far north or a second dot is needed in the Sargasso Sea. That is the area in the center of the circulation of the North Atlantic Ocean. Also referred to as the Doldrums because of LACK of winds and very little current to drive the old sailing ships. It is also referred to for its position as a subtropical high.
It is the center of the very stable high pressure zone over the North Atlantic at around 30 degrees north latitude, the zone of subtropical highs. The main air flow is from the upper atmosphere downward with clockwise rotation (which drives the winds and therefore the ocean currents around the edges of the high pressure zone. High pressure also coincides with (actually causes) cloudless sky, meaning more incoming solar radiation. That helps grow the macro-algae (the Sargassum seaweed)
I highly recommend this summary at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargasso_Sea
NOTE: Yes, it is Wikipedia, which I think is a very useful resource for basic information, and I encourage you to join me in annual donations to assure its continuation.
B. My 20 years of work in retirement have been about pyrolysis for energy and biochar. I assure you that the intended
Large scale ocean-based algae farms floating on the main ocean currents
is quite compatible with biochar production, but that is for later messages.
I would alter that descriptor to read as: Large scale ocean-based algae farms floating on the oceans. The reference to the currents is too limiting. There are similar oceanic areas in the central zones of all of the oceans at about 30 degrees north and also south latitudes. Taken together, if they are (estimated to be) 10% of the world’s oceans, that would be 7% of the surface of the planet, and located in the “best” zones for favourable sunshine and plenty of water (if desalinated). Note that the TOTAL land mass is only 30% of the surface of the planet, including rugged mountains and very dry deserts.
Not totally in jest, I will say that the development of the oceanic surfaces in the areas of the subtropical highs could become the needed “Planet B” where life on Earth (or at least major activities) could find some partial salvation as we destroy our lives and livelihood on land.
Robert, I am on board with you for this topic. I hope that others can embrace the visions (plural) of how to save our planet.
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD --- Website: www.drtlud.com
Email: psan...@ilstu.edu Skype: paultlud
Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP Go to: www.JuntosNFP.org
Inventor of RoCC kilns and author of Biochar white paper : See www.woodgas.energy/resources
Author of “A Capitalist Carol” (free digital copies at www.capitalism21.org)
with pages 88 – 94 about solving the world crisis for clean cookstoves.
From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>
On Behalf Of rob...@rtulip.net
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2021 4:38 AM
To: 'Arctic Methane Google Group' <arctic...@googlegroups.com>; 'Healthy Climate Alliance' <healthy-clim...@googlegroups.com>; 'Planetary Restoration' <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; 'geoengineering' <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>;
'Carbon Dioxide Removal' <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [CDR] World Cooling Map
|
You don't often get email from rob...@rtulip.net. Learn why this is important |
[This message came from an external source. If suspicious, report to ab...@ilstu.edu]
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/031901d7dd31%24916c2a40%24b4447ec0%24%40rtulip.net.
Robert Tulip
Hi Paul
Thanks for your positive response.
My suggestion to use ocean currents to float algae farms involves the use of the large stable ocean currents as trade routes, not only for algae but also for other commodities, as a carbon-removing transport method replacing bulk tankers.
Algae farms can be loaded near shore with CO2 from coal fired power stations and nutrient-rich Deep Ocean Water, and then allowed to float on currents to a collection point.
This could also allow movement of algae farms into stable gyres as you say, such as the Sargasso Sea and the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. The fibre material for such floating farms would serve as a carbon sink and would need to be big enough to withstand ocean conditions. As you also mention, biochar production should become a major carbon sink from algae.
Gideon Rachman in the Financial Times has just mentioned the work of the Cambridge Centre for Climate Repair on refreezing the Arctic. The fleets of Marine Cloud Brightening vessels shown in the map can assist with this refreezing by cooling the ocean currents flowing into the Arctic.
Opening the Arctic Ocean as a world trading route with an ice canal would connect east and west hemispheres, of major economic interest and value.
The G20 might be the best organisation to investigate this ice canal possibility, integrating it with measures to re-freeze the pole, cool the oceans and build the ocean algae industry.
I have written the attached short article on The Case for Geoengineering, which provides some thinking behind these proposals.
Robert
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/SA2PR03MB5932E6E3AC3B199200FA519BDB9C9%40SA2PR03MB5932.namprd03.prod.outlook.com.
Ronal Larson
On Nov 19, 2021, at 9:24 AM, Anderson, Paul <psan...@ilstu.edu> wrote:Robert,AWESOME!!!Each of the 3 possible cooling interventions has merit for separate discussions.Please keep me included in any discussion / work regarding the focus onLarge scale ocean-based algae farms floating on the main ocean currentsI am a retired geography professor. I offer the following contribution:A. The green dot indicating an Algae farm in the North Atlantic Ocean is either too far north or a second dot is needed in the Sargasso Sea. That is the area in the center of the circulation of the North Atlantic Ocean. Also referred to as the Doldrums because of LACK of winds and very little current to drive the old sailing ships. It is also referred to for its position as a subtropical high.It is the center of the very stable high pressure zone over the North Atlantic at around 30 degrees north latitude, the zone of subtropical highs. The main air flow is from the upper atmosphere downward with clockwise rotation (which drives the winds and therefore the ocean currents around the edges of the high pressure zone. High pressure also coincides with (actually causes) cloudless sky, meaning more incoming solar radiation. That helps grow the macro-algae (the Sargassum seaweed)NOTE: Yes, it is Wikipedia, which I think is a very useful resource for basic information, and I encourage you to join me in annual donations to assure its continuation.
`<image002.png>
B. My 20 years of work in retirement have been about pyrolysis for energy and biochar. I assure you that the intendedLarge scale ocean-based algae farms floating on the main ocean currentsis quite compatible with biochar production, but that is for later messages.I would alter that descriptor to read as: Large scale ocean-based algae farms floating on the oceans. The reference to the currents is too limiting. There are similar oceanic areas in the central zones of all of the oceans at about 30 degrees north and also south latitudes. Taken together, if they are (estimated to be) 10% of the world’s oceans, that would be 7% of the surface of the planet, and located in the “best” zones for favourable sunshine and plenty of water (if desalinated). Note that the TOTAL land mass is only 30% of the surface of the planet, including rugged mountains and very dry deserts.Not totally in jest, I will say that the development of the oceanic surfaces in the areas of the subtropical highs could become the needed “Planet B” where life on Earth (or at least major activities) could find some partial salvation as we destroy our lives and livelihood on land.Robert, I am on board with you for this topic. I hope that others can embrace the visions (plural) of how to save our planet.PaulDoc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD --- Website: www.drtlud.comEmail: psan...@ilstu.edu Skype: paultludPhone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434Inventor of RoCC kilns and author of Biochar white paper : See www.woodgas.energy/resourcesAuthor of “A Capitalist Carol” (free digital copies at www.capitalism21.org)with pages 88 – 94 about solving the world crisis for clean cookstoves.
From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of rob...@rtulip.net
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2021 4:38 AM
To: 'Arctic Methane Google Group' <arctic...@googlegroups.com>; 'Healthy Climate Alliance' <healthy-clim...@googlegroups.com>; 'Planetary Restoration' <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; 'geoengineering' <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; 'Carbon Dioxide Removal' <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [CDR] World Cooling Map
[This message came from an external source. If suspicious, report to ab...@ilstu.edu]
Friends,Here are some ideas I have been working on.
<image001.jpg>
This World Cooling Map depicts three possible cooling interventions:
- Large scale ocean-based algae farms floating on the main ocean currents. [RWL: Covered above]
- Fleets of marine cloud brightening vessels
[RWL3: My guess is that it would be significantly cheaper to operate (and prove the concept) at first on island and continental shorelines. After a hundred or so stationary, we can shift to “fleets”.
3.. Refreezing the North Pole with an ice canal connecting the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans.
These proposals can be developed with a high level of safety. They would immediately cool the ocean, reduce CO2 and methane, increase planetary brightness, protect biodiversity and increase biomass.The goal is to cut planetary temperature and reduce risks of extreme weather and sea level rise, setting a path toward planetary restoration and climate repair.The scale of the proposal reflects the necessary magnitude of climate stabilisation, presenting a path to eventually remove hundreds of gigatons of CO2 from the air through simple technology with major economic benefits.A refrozen Arctic should be a wilderness protected zone. A shipping canal across the Pole can support wilderness protection by paying for refreezing of the whole Arctic. A direct connection between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans through the North Pole can bring immense gains for prosperity and security that should be integrated with climate restoration. Wind and tidal energy can pump seawater above the surface in winter to increase summer ice thickness and extent. The major environmental benefit of refreezing the Arctic Ocean is that turning the pole from dark ocean to white ice in summer will convert it from a heat sink to a reflector, removing a vast amount of heat from the ocean system to outer space. Large positive environmental and climatic impacts of refreezing the Pole arise from restoring the Polar region to its historic ice coverage. Benefits include restoring habitat, stabilising the jet stream, preventing methane release and ending Greenland ice melt.
Ocean based algae production can make biomass on large scale, which can be converted into a range of commodities.
Comment welcome.Best RegardsRobert Tulip--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/031901d7dd31%24916c2a40%24b4447ec0%24%40rtulip.net.--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/SA2PR03MB5932E6E3AC3B199200FA519BDB9C9%40SA2PR03MB5932.namprd03.prod.outlook.com.
Anderson, Paul
Ronal,
My responses are below in a different color.
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD --- Website: www.drtlud.com
Email: psan...@ilstu.edu Skype: paultlud
Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP Go to: www.JuntosNFP.org
Inventor of RoCC kilns and author of Biochar white paper : See www.woodgas.energy/resources
Author of “A Capitalist Carol” (free digital copies at www.capitalism21.org)
with pages 88 – 94 about solving the world crisis for clean cookstoves.
From: Ronal Larson <rongre...@comcast.net>
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2021 3:36 PM
To: Anderson, Paul <psan...@ilstu.edu>; rob...@rtulip.net; John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>
Cc: Arctic Methane Google Group <arctic...@googlegroups.com>; Healthy Climate Alliance <healthy-clim...@googlegroups.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; via geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>;
Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>; Biochar.groups.io <ma...@biochar.groups.io>
Subject: Re: [CDR] World Cooling Map
Robert and Paul, John and 6 ccs. (note that Paul added “biochar.io”, but did not otherwise use that word. I am mainly responding for biochar reasons)
RWL1. I write because I agree with Paul on all 3 of Robert’s 3 ideas below. Paul said;
"others can embrace the visions (plural) of how to save our planet. “
see other inserts below in both Paul’s and Robert’s messages today
On Nov 19, 2021, at 9:24 AM, Anderson, Paul <psan...@ilstu.edu> wrote:
Robert,
AWESOME!!!
Each of the 3 possible cooling interventions has merit for separate discussions.
Please keep me included in any discussion / work regarding the focus on
Large scale ocean-based algae farms floating on the main ocean currents
I am a retired geography professor. I offer the following contribution:
A. The green dot indicating an Algae farm in the North Atlantic Ocean is either too far north or a second dot is needed in the Sargasso Sea. That is the area in the center of the circulation of the North Atlantic Ocean. Also referred to as the Doldrums because of LACK of winds and very little current to drive the old sailing ships. It is also referred to for its position as a subtropical high.
It is the center of the very stable high pressure zone over the North Atlantic at around 30 degrees north latitude, the zone of subtropical highs. The main air flow is from the upper atmosphere downward with clockwise rotation (which drives the winds and therefore the ocean currents around the edges of the high pressure zone. High pressure also coincides with (actually causes) cloudless sky, meaning more incoming solar radiation. That helps grow the macro-algae (the Sargassum seaweed)
I highly recommend this summary at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sargasso_Sea
NOTE: Yes, it is Wikipedia, which I think is a very useful resource for basic information, and I encourage you to join me in annual donations to assure its continuation.
[RWL2: A few questions for sargassum experts:
1. Is the vast majority of sargassum growth on the southern part of its journey from Africa to the Caribbean?
2. Any need to contain the moving patches of sargassum? (much cheaper to not do so, presumably)
3. Can harvesting take place only in the Caribbean?
[PSA>>] There are macro-algae (sea weed) in many places, but I am commenting on the zone in the North Atlantic (not the Caribbean) where there is very little wind or current. No or seldom major storms. Using nature as it actually is, not spending energy to alter the situations. The proposed area of a “local region” would be floating, with pyrolysis done on site. A “community” could be like a small island nation with a major business of CDR via pyrolysis. The char returns to mainland ports via returning supply ships.
4. How valuable would conversion to biochar be to the local region? (and might “tourism” funds from those countries be available to support this concept?
5. Are the other gyres all fairly similar? [PSA>>] I suspect there are similarities. Tonnage can be increased by intentional activities for growing more of the plants. Additional square kilometers of what is open ocean could become zones of photosynthesis. Other areas close enough to land could also produce the plants and have land-based processing, but that is another approach.
6. Any estimates of annual dry tonnage - globally?
7. Which parts of the ocean seem best for harvesting as input to biochar? (I’ve heard good things about the southern coast of Australia.)
Agree with Paul’s part B - can jump to RWL3 in Robert’s message.
`<image002.png>
B. My 20 years of work in retirement have been about pyrolysis for energy and biochar. I assure you that the intended
Large scale ocean-based algae farms floating on the main ocean currents
is quite compatible with biochar production, but that is for later messages.
I would alter that descriptor to read as: Large scale ocean-based algae farms floating on the oceans. The reference to the currents is too limiting. There are similar oceanic areas in the central zones of all of the oceans at about 30 degrees north and also south latitudes. Taken together, if they are (estimated to be) 10% of the world’s oceans, that would be 7% of the surface of the planet, and located in the “best” zones for favourable sunshine and plenty of water (if desalinated). Note that the TOTAL land mass is only 30% of the surface of the planet, including rugged mountains and very dry deserts.
Not totally in jest, I will say that the development of the oceanic surfaces in the areas of the subtropical highs could become the needed “Planet B” where life on Earth (or at least major activities) could find some partial salvation as we destroy our lives and livelihood on land.
Robert, I am on board with you for this topic. I hope that others can embrace the visions (plural) of how to save our planet.
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD --- Website: www.drtlud.com
Email: psan...@ilstu.edu Skype: paultlud
Phone: Office: 309-452-7072 Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434
Exec. Dir. of Juntos Energy Solutions NFP Go to: www.JuntosNFP.org
Inventor of RoCC kilns and author of Biochar white paper : See www.woodgas.energy/resources
Author of “A Capitalist Carol” (free digital copies at www.capitalism21.org)
with pages 88 – 94 about solving the world crisis for clean cookstoves.
From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of rob...@rtulip.net
Sent: Friday, November 19, 2021 4:38 AM
To: 'Arctic Methane Google Group' <arctic...@googlegroups.com>; 'Healthy Climate Alliance' <healthy-clim...@googlegroups.com>; 'Planetary Restoration' <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; 'geoengineering' <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; 'Carbon Dioxide Removal' <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [CDR] World Cooling Map
You don't often get email from rob...@rtulip.net. Learn why this is important
Friends,
Here are some ideas I have been working on.
<image001.jpg>
This World Cooling Map depicts three possible cooling interventions:
- Large scale ocean-based algae farms floating on the main ocean currents. [RWL: Covered above]
- Fleets of marine cloud brightening vessels
[RWL3: My guess is that it would be significantly cheaper to operate (and prove the concept) at first on island and continental shorelines. After a hundred or so stationary, we can shift to “fleets”.
3..
Refreezing the North Pole with an ice canal connecting the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans.
[RWL4: I have not previously seen this canal concept. The diagram shows also an “ice-wall-trough" with ice-“walls and floor" below. That seems pretty difficult to accomplish with wind forces always working to close the gasp - as well . What dimensions are envisioned? Are there other (maybe ice breaker ships?) approaches that may have already been proposed for keeping a winter-time path open?
[PSA>>] There are certainly times with winds, but the polar areas are also mainly high pressure zones with relatively less winds.
The “canal” concept can create a lot of valuable “salty ice”. But nowhere near as much as if the main “canal” has (maybe) hundreds of perpendicular side “ canals" extending in hundreds of miles. Alternatively, there could be dozens of parallel “”Pacific-to-Atlantic” canals.
I vaguely recall that there is a sizable (a foot or two elevation difference - because of more evaporation near the Atlantic) between the Pacific and Atlantic ends. True?? Might that somehow be used to "shave off" intruding ice? And power ice-making salty water? (Wind might be cheaper - but there is a lot of water power equipment in use).
[PSA>>] 30 or 60 cm of elevation difference (if that is so) is not enough when spread across a thousand kilometers. There will not be any flow to be controlled or utilized.
I would urge some map simplifications:
[PSA>>] As a geography and cartography professor (retired), I agree that other maps could present the information better, especially separating the three major interventions onto their own set of maps. But we need to choose the right ones (probably centered on the oceans or on the 30 – 35 degree bands of latitude, but no need for Bucky’s “globe” which is for a global view) and with better map symbols.
Readers should feel free to break apart the major themes when they send replies.
Paul (I am only on the CDR and Biochar discussion groups, so please pass these messages to the other groups if desired.)
Roger Arnold
Ronal Larson
On Nov 20, 2021, at 11:57 AM, Roger Arnold <silver...@gmail.com> wrote:With or without the canal, refreezing of the arctic ocean would certainly be desirable. But how could it be accomplished? There's no obvious way that I can see that would be economically feasible. If we're able to remove enough CO2 from the atmosphere,
the icecap would return naturally. But that's something that follows from a solution, not a practical step toward a solution.
Regarding the canal, the issue I see is the tremendous forces that build up from random winds blowing across vast sheets of ice. They would want to crush the canal out of existence at some times, rip it apart at others.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/8b270529-d158-4ac7-a111-20f09e1df692n%40googlegroups.com.
Robert Tulip
This reply to all the threads copies replies which only went to the CDR thread. The discussion relates to both CDR using algae farms and albedo increase by polar freezing.
CDR using Algae Farms
Hi Ronal and Paul, thanks so much for these considered expert comments. In his first reply, Paul put the algae discussion into the biochar context, saying “My 20 years of work in retirement have been about pyrolysis for energy and biochar. I assure you that the intended large-scale ocean-based algae farms floating on the main ocean currents is quite compatible with biochar production.”
The mention of pyrolysis prompts me to explain my view of how oceanic algae can be processed. Hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) can transform a wet algae slurry into a hydrocarbon stream and an aqueous fertilizer stream. Therefore, feeding algae with Deep Ocean Water high in nitrates and phosphates can constantly recycle new nutrients into the algae farm via the aqueous HTL stream, while carbon is drawn from both air and sea for hydrocarbon production.
Pyrolysis to produce biochar operates at different temperature and pressure from HTL. A range of conditions should be tested. My view is the scale of ocean carbon production required for planetary stability will eventually justify using the Mid Atlantic Ridge as an HTL production zone, using the 2km water depth and geothermal heat in the tectonic plate production area of the ridge to enable hydrocarbon and fertilizer production without use of fossil energy.
Ocean-based pyrolysis of biochar could partially dewater algae by mixing air through a heated algae slurry and then using ocean depth for pressure. Pyrolysis under moderate pressure (0.5–3.0 MPa or depth of 50-300m) seems to increase the charcoal yield due to the longer vapour residence time within the solid particle.
Biochar thickens and improves soil. Covering much of the earth with a new layer of soil made of pyrolised algae would be highly protective for biosystems and an excellent carbon sink. I see algae biochar as preferably funded by commercial investment, with subsidy from public funds calculated by long term verifiable GHG removal measured by the cut to Radiative Forcing.
Ocean gyres and currents have major cooling potential. Scale up of algae production at sea requires agreed ocean locations for stationary algae farms in gyres and routes for moving farms along currents, in coordination with shipping and fishing interests.
Algae farms will support integrated multi trophic aquaculture and biomass production that will substantially increase fisheries biomass, enabling industry expansion for food security while enhancing biodiversity.
The area required to match the carbon content of total GHG emissions would to my understanding require algae coverage between 1% and 10% of the world ocean area (3-30 million km2) depending on the industrial intensity, which could range from low intensity kelp arrays through to high intensity enclosed fabric photobioreactors.
I did calculations years ago to derive the preliminary estimate that covering 1% of the world ocean (3 million km2) with algae farms would remove 50 Gt CO2 per year, with optimal algae yields. Converting that biomass into stable sinks would then require further processing such as for biochar or fabric, or it could be re-emitted via HTL fuel and fertilizer manufacture. Other major products include animal feed, fisheries, food and forestry.
It may be possible to use tidal pumps on the edge of continental shelves to pump deep ocean water to the surface as algae feedstock, and then float algae farms from the initial location to an ocean gyre to grow until the algae crop is at maximum density, where it can be continuously harvested with further fertilizer inputs from Deep Ocean Water and CO2.
I think the southern coast of Australia will be too rough and cold for large scale algae production, although there may be suitable sites. Ocean gyres and sheltered tropical waters such as north of Australia in the Arafura Sea look better. Using ocean currents as a biomass transport route, for example from Northern Australia around Africa to the Caribbean, could grow ocean algae species in saltwater in fabric enclosures. This builds upon NASA’s Ocean Membrane Enclosures for Growing Algae research from a decade ago. Farms launched near Darwin can fill with Deep Ocean Water from the Timor Trench before floating into the Indian Ocean.
Albedo increase by polar freezing
Arctic ice canal construction could use ice with added weight (eg gravel) and structural materials so it naturally floats below the draft of the deepest ship. The main shipping canal could be built straight across the North Pole from the Bering Strait to near Greenland under the floating sea ice in winter, using the winter cold to freeze seawater blocks for canal construction.
Pumping seawater into surface containers to freeze in the winter cold would produce ice bricks, possibly large truck load size. This ice brick could then be trucked into position for placement to construct the ice canal. This ice production method could be expanded to maximise the ice volume and area across the whole Arctic Ocean in winter, to minimize summer melt.
Stopping wind and currents from collapsing the ice canal would be a function of scale, materials and design. It might be possible to use carbon-fibre beams to reinforce the canal.
The overall project would be designed to refreeze the whole Arctic wilderness so there is no polar blue water in summer.
My view is that there should be three canals, the Northern Route, the North Pole Route and the Northwest Passage. It should be possible to keep these ocean thoroughfares permanently open while freezing the rest of the Arctic as a World Heritage Wilderness Area.
I wanted to startle people with the map centred on the North Pole. It is a planetary perspective that people do not easily think about, especially seeing the relative size and position of the continents and oceans as accurately scaled in this projection. It highlights how the Arctic could provide direct ocean passage for bulk transport between major economic powers while also serving as a primary planetary cooling site. This is just the initial broad-brush concept which can be refined with more detail.
Robert Tulip
From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Anderson, Paul
Sent: Saturday, 20 November 2021 3:59 PM
To: Ronal Larson <rongre...@comcast.net>; rob...@rtulip.net; John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>
Cc: Arctic Methane Google Group <arctic...@googlegroups.com>; Healthy Climate Alliance <healthy-clim...@googlegroups.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>; via geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>; Biochar.groups.io <ma...@biochar.groups.io>
Subject: RE: [CDR] World Cooling Map
Ronal,
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/SA2PR03MB59323DCE3770E22AB340A43ADB9D9%40SA2PR03MB5932.namprd03.prod.outlook.com.
Peter Flynn
Ron et al.,
Some comments on ice:
1. Important to realize that making ice from both fresh and sea water are well proven “ancient” technologies. It is a standard practice in the north to make an ice road by pumping water onto the surface of the ice, thickening the ice. The supply road to Leningrad over Lake Ladoga is a historical example, but there are places in Canada where this is done annually to allow truck access part of the year to remote communities. Sea water was used to make thick ice islands for drilling platforms in the Beaufort Sea in the 70’s. It works.
2. Why pump the water to the surface? To get around the self insulating feature of natural ice formation. The “cold” is in the winter atmosphere. Natural ice forms at the bottom of the ice sheet, ice is an insulator, moreso as it thickens.
3. Spray vs. low lift: for rapid ice formation, spray into the air to get a higher overall rate of heat transfer. Ski hills do this for two reasons: quicker, and one forms small ice particles that are like snow, not ice sheets. But spray is energy intensive, and low lift (just get the liquid water on the surface) moves far more water, and is perfectly ok on a cold night, as evidenced by the ample history of ice road construction. If one wanted to start an ice sheet in open ocean: spray. But wherever there is a sufficient existing ice sheet, switch to low lift.
4. Ron, a minor correction. The goal would be two fold: both create new ice, perhaps annual, but also strive to get incremental multi year ice, 2+ meters. If albedo is the primary goal (I think it should be), then restoring multi year ice is the goal.
5. In the overall picture, making incremental sea ice transfers heat from the ocean to the atmosphere. The expectation is that the heat is incrementally radiated into space.
6. There is a curiosity question: what happens to the salt. When natural ice forms at the bottom of the sheet, the formed ice is low in salt and a brine sinks from the bottom of the sheet. There is a question if ice is formed on the surface: does a brine migrate through microchannels in the ice, or stay trapped in the ice. It is important to say: so what, make ice anyway. But I have thought of a simple experiment to test this, attached (I’m retired and don’t have the lab to do this, but for those in the “publish or perish” world, this is an easy project and relevant paper).
7. In a 2005 paper we did costs estimates of a barge fleet to make ice, the reference is in the Word document attached. If anyone is interested I’ll send the paper.
8. A personal opinion: start simple. There are many tweaks people look at, channels, breaking up ice to create new areas of freezing, anchoring ice blocks. All good as build ons, but there is no reason not to get started on the first effort: either make incremental new ice (spray), or thicken existing ice (low lift), or best of all: both.
Peter
Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.
Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers
Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/19758DB1-3857-460D-BC2B-781347BA6020%40comcast.net.
Peter Flynn
Robert et al.
At the risk of cross posting, an email I sent today in response to Ron Larson is below, in case this is of help.
Peter
Ron et al.,
Some comments on ice:
1. Important to realize that making ice from both fresh and sea water are well proven “ancient” technologies. It is a standard practice in the north to make an ice road by pumping water onto the surface of the ice, thickening the ice. The supply road to Leningrad over Lake Ladoga is a historical example, but there are places in Canada where this is done annually to allow truck access part of the year to remote communities. Sea water was used to make thick ice islands for drilling platforms in the Beaufort Sea in the 70’s. It works.
2. Why pump the water to the surface? To get around the self insulating feature of natural ice formation. The “cold” is in the winter atmosphere. Natural ice forms at the bottom of the ice sheet, ice is an insulator, moreso as it thickens.
3. Spray vs. low lift: for rapid ice formation, spray into the air to get a higher overall rate of heat transfer. Ski hills do this for two reasons: quicker, and one forms small ice particles that are like snow, not ice sheets. But spray is energy intensive, and low lift (just get the liquid water on the surface) moves far more water, and is perfectly ok on a cold night, as evidenced by the ample history of ice road construction. If one wanted to start an ice sheet in open ocean: spray. But wherever there is a sufficient existing ice sheet, switch to low lift.
4. Ron, a minor correction. The goal would be two fold: both create new ice, perhaps annual, but also strive to get incremental multi year ice, 2+ meters. If albedo is the primary goal (I think it should be), then restoring multi year ice is the goal.
5. In the overall picture, making incremental sea ice transfers heat from the ocean to the atmosphere. The expectation is that the heat is incrementally radiated into space.
6. There is a curiosity question: what happens to the salt. When natural ice forms at the bottom of the sheet, the formed ice is low in salt and a brine sinks from the bottom of the sheet. There is a question if ice is formed on the surface: does a brine migrate through microchannels in the ice, or stay trapped in the ice. It is important to say: so what, make ice anyway. But I have thought of a simple experiment to test this, attached (I’m retired and don’t have the lab to do this, but for those in the “publish or perish” world, this is an easy project and relevant paper).
7. In a 2005 paper we did costs estimates of a barge fleet to make ice, the reference is in the Word document attached. If anyone is interested I’ll send the paper.
8. A personal opinion: start simple. There are many tweaks people look at, channels, breaking up ice to create new areas of freezing, anchoring ice blocks. All good as build ons, but there is no reason not to get started on the first effort: either make incremental new ice (spray), or thicken existing ice (low lift), or best of all: both.
Peter
Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.
Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers
Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/009701d7decf%24196f2570%244c4d7050%24%40yahoo.com.au.