John >It would be simple to experiment on ponds which are producing methane, and see if a spray of diatoms, with or without nutrients, could have a significant effect.
>BTW, I would expect that such an experiment has been done already - does anybody know? I have been trying for past few years to find anyone else who has done this type of experiment. We use Diatoms to increase dissolved oxygen level but have never checked for Methane emissions. You can't grow Diatoms elsewhere and put them in lakes, they release O2 as they grow. All water bodies have Diatoms, the problem is to make them dominate. If left to nature Cyanobacteria dominates over time - this is called eutrophication. This is the problem being witnessed world over, please check for reports of algal blooms and dead zones. regards Bhaskar On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 3:49 PM, John Nissen <[email protected]>wrote: > Dear Michael and Bhaskar, > > Thanks for these thoughts - they could become the basis of something useful > in the Arctic to suppress methane: > > > 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. > > It would be simple to experiment on ponds which are producing methane, and > see if a spray of diatoms, with or without nutrients, could have a > significant effect. > > BTW, I would expect that such an experiment has been done already - does > anybody know? > > Cheers, > > John > > P.S. Any brainstorming ideas like this for the methane-busting workshop, > London 3-4 September, are most welcome. > > --- > > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 11:16 AM, BHASKAR M V <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Dr Gorman >> >> I am referring to all three - >> Diatomaceous Earth and live diatoms as a SRM solution. >> Nano silica with micro nutrients to keep the live diatoms alive and cause >> further bloom after they fall into the oceans. >> >> DE is NOT in nano size. Is is in microns. >> >> Michael >> >> I understand that Crystalline silica of 1 micro or more is carcenogenic >> and amorphous silica is not. >> >> Diatoms are amorphous silica. >> >> DE is approved by EPA for human contact use and indirect consumption - >> water filters, grain silos. It can be sprinkled on beds to kill bed bugs, >> rubbed into pet fur to kill bugs, etc. >> >> regards >> >> Bhaskar >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 2:52 PM, Michael Hayes <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> 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. >> > > -- 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.
