Hi Folks, Bhaskar, Thanks for the clarification(s). I was hoping to encourage you to give us more information. The list of questions you posted is a challenge. Can you venture a "guess" as to the answers. I know you would prefer "proof" backing any ventured comment, yet your questions are far reaching and thus would take years to establish the many "facts" sought out by your questions.
This forum is not a "Formal" Peer Review Journal. You have the freedom to speculate. Trust me, being "wrong" is not that painful with this group. I have yet to be "right". I personally would like to hear your..... opinions..... concerning the possible answers to your questions. Thanks, Michael On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Sam Carana <sam.car...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 <bhaskarmv...@gmail.com> > 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 <voglerl...@gmail.com> 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 geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > geoengineering+unsubscr...@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 geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > > -- *Michael Hayes* *360-708-4976* http://www.wix.com/voglerlake/vogler-lake-web-site -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
