Dr. Gorman, My conceptual sketch was just that...a sketch of an idea. If diatom blooms can be triggered at long range and at low cost, it would be a useful tool on a number of levels. I do need to admit to a serious lack of background research before offering the sketch. I made an assumption which has proven out to be wrong. I have, today, found that DE has significant lung cancer implication.
I withdraw the conceptual sketch. Thanks for your patience, Michael On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 12:57 AM, John Gorman <[email protected]> wrote: > ** > I am not clear as to whether live diatoms are being suggested or just > diatoms because they are nano silica particles as in diatomous earth. > > If the latter then Gregory Benford suggested the spreading of diatomous > earth as diatoms in the stratosphere, about four years ago (1) as an SRM > method. From a separate direction I suggested that the particles could be > produced by adding tetra ethyl silicate to aviation fuel.(2) This might have > various practical advantages such as exact control of particle size. > > Such particles in the troposphere would have very short lifetime -rather > like the Icelandic ash clouds so limited SRM effect and all the > disadvantages to air travel etc wouldn't they? > > john gorman > > (1) Search for "saving the Arctic" in this group- I cant make teh link > work! > (2) http://www.naturaljointmobility.info/grantproposal09.htm > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "M V Bhaskar" <[email protected]> > To: "geoengineering" <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 2:07 AM > Subject: [geo] Re: Tropospheric Injection of Diatoms > > > 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. > -- *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 [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.
