Thanks for this. I do hope the IPCC will take this on board as well, realizing that geoengineering also encompasses such ways to tackle methane.
Cheers! Sam Carana On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 11:07 AM, M V Bhaskar <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Micheal > > Thanks. > > Your proposal is quite interesting. > > A clarification - We are not advocating use of micro Diatoms, we are > advocating use of Nano Silica based micro nutrients in waterways, > these cause naturally present Diatoms to bloom. > > Since atmosphere would not contain Diatoms, Pico Diatoms can perhaps > be used along with our nano powder. > > The biggest advantage is that whatever falls onto oceans unconsumed in > the atmosphere, will bloom in the oceans, so nothing is wasted. > > This would be a sort of SRM + Ocean Fertilization scheme. > >> This might be done through laminating the dried >> preparation with biologically neutral reflective material (white powdered >> sugar?). > > Diatomaceous Earth may be the best solution. > There are mountains of these all over the world. > > http://www.squidoo.com/fossilflour > Scroll down for some very good photos. > > regards > > Bhaskar > > > On Jun 22, 3:11 am, Michael Hayes <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Folks, >> >> This is a conceptual sketch on the use of a biological aerosol. It is a very >> raw concept, yet I found it an interesting thought. >> >> *Tropospheric Injection of Micro Diatoms * >> >> *A Combined SRM/CCS Proposal with Long Term Implications for* >> >> *Enhanced Hydrate Burial and General Ocean Acidification Mitigation* >> >> *A Brief Conceptual Sketch Offered to the Google Geoengineering Group* >> >> Diatoms are ubiquitous to the waters of this planet and they all have self >> regulating biological features which makes them ideal for GE use on a >> regional or global scale. It is estimated that there are approximately 2 >> million species, yet only a fraction have been studied. This proposal does >> not call out for any particular species. I leave that determination to >> others. In general, they play an important role on many different levels. >> Diatoms offer O2 production, CO2 capture and sequestration along with long >> term hydrate burial. The potential for diatoms to produce biofuel is well >> known but that issue is outside of this proposal. >> >> Through my discussions with M.V. Bhaskar, I have become aware that micro >> diatoms can be prepared in a dry form as a means to seed bodies of water to >> produce artificial diatom blooms for enhanced O2 saturation. This conceptual >> sketch proposes that this type of material be considered for atmospheric >> aerosol injection as a form of combined SRM/CCS/Enhanced Hydrate Burial and >> Ocean Acidification Mitigation. >> >> :A minimum of seven main technical issues concerning this type of >> biological aerosol medium can be anticipated. >> >> 1. >> >> *Will this form of aerosol stay suspended for a reasonable time?* The >> size of micro diatoms are such that proper dispersal could produce an >> aerosol which would stay suspended for a significantly reasonable periods >> of >> time. The engineering of the dispersal method is similar to previous >> aerosol >> concepts. The suspension time will depend on many factors ranging from >> altitude of injection, latitude of injection (atmospheric cell >> characteristics) and general tropospheric weather conditions. The rate (if >> any) of atmospheric moisture absorption needs further understanding. If it >> is found that this medium does absorb atmospheric moisture, this could >> represent a means to reduce that primary green house gas, as well as, >> possibly providing a means for cloud nucleation/brightening. >> >> 2. >> >> *Will the diatom aerosol reflect SR?* Typically, this diatom preparation >> is brown. I believe it may be possible that the diatom material can be >> engineered to be reflective. This might be done through laminating the >> dried >> preparation with biologically neutral reflective material (white powdered >> sugar?). Finding the right laminating material which does not >> substantially >> degrade suspension time, seed viability or produce accumulated >> environmental >> adverse effects will need investigating along with the associated high >> volume production needs. >> >> 3. >> >> *Will the diatom material remain viable through the aerosol phase into >> the aquatic environment?* Tropospheric injection avoids the higher >> altitude environmental stress issues. Such as, high UV, low ambient >> pressure >> and extreme low temperatures, which may effect seed viability. However, >> the >> possibility of laminating the material to address the high altitude >> concerns >> may also be possible in the future and will need further investigation. >> The >> added complications, relative to seed survival, of stratospheric injection >> indicates that tropospheric injection should be the initial deployment >> consideration. Stratospheric injection may be avoided if coordinated and >> tailored regional tropospheric efforts can be developed. >> >> 4. >> >> *Will this method address arctic ocean methane release?* ESAS based >> tropospheric injection of this medium can have three significant benefits. >> The first is the immediate SRM benefit (with proper seed lamination, >> possible cloud nucleation/brightening). Second is the potential enhanced >> dissolved methane oxidation rate. Third is the enhanced wide area increase >> in the sediment build up rate over the shallow water hydrate fields.. The >> ESAS is at a critical edge of the GHSZ envelope. A rapid build up of >> diatom >> debris could expand the envelope significantly with just one added meter >> of >> diatom sediment ooze (insulation against warming waters, as well as, >> decreasing the porosity of the existing sediment). That will obviously >> take >> a few years to achieve. However, no other practical means to achieve this >> needed large area effect seems available. Also, can the resident AOM adapt >> to a marked increase in diatom rain? >> >> 5. >> >> *Will this method address tundra methane release?* Not completely, >> however this method could seed even the smallest body of standing water >> within a tundra region and thus provide added O2 saturation and the >> associated methane oxidation. As the tundra continues to warm, more >> standing >> water will emerge and thus this potential enhanced oxidation will become >> more important. >> >> 6. >> >> *Will this method have a meaningful/measurable effect on ocean pH levels? >> * Diatoms consume dissolved CO2 and thus it is a matter of scale. There >> is a need to determine the seed mass ratio to the total CO2 consumption >> that >> can be attributed to that seed mass. This will determine the cost >> effectiveness/scalability *of this aspect* of the concept. The current >> use of this diatom seed material does not take into account the aerosol >> phase being proposed. Seed survival rates during the aerosol phase might >> be >> determined through table top experiments, yet field test would be needed >> to >> verify any lab data. *Field trials for this overall concept should not >> trigger significant protests as the diatom species which will be used pose >> no known toxic hazards and are widely considered to be ecologically >> beneficial.* >> >> 7. >> >> *Will this method be financially competitive with other aerosol concepts? >> * The cost of diatom medium preparation and injection can be expected to >> be somewhat greater than sulfate/aluminum aerosols. This is due to the >> potential beneficial aspects of this biological medium after >> precipitation. >> The more material used, the greater the overall beneficial effect. That >> aspect represents a principal departure from that of the prior art. The >> prior methods seek to minimize cost through use of long lasting aerosols >> (which have no secondary environmental benefit). The less aerosol used, >> the >> less cost (and less potential adverse effects). This proposed method >> represents a means which generates second and third order ecological >> benefits once the aerosol precipitates. The added cost of the expected >> large >> volume of material to be used should be justifiable due to these important >> interrelated secondary benefits. This is not just a mitigation effort, it >> is >> potentially also a general regional ecological enhancement. >> >> *This GE approach offers at least two *non* global warming mitigation >> related benefits to society. *First would be the overall water quality >> improvement in the operational area due to the increase in saturated O2 >> levels provided by the seeded diatom blooms. Second would be that fisheries >> may improve due to the increase in the marine food production rates at the >> micro level. If only those two ancillary, yet fundamentally important >> benefits, can be proven, the debate surrounding GE can be expected to take a >> new direction. >> >> *Note:* If this proposal finds any acceptance, M.V. Bhaskar deserves ample >> credit. I have simply tried to craft his input into conventional GE terms. >> If it finds no acceptance, I take full credit. >> >> Michael Hayes 6/21/11 > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > 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 [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
