I'm not against biological methods, you just can't easily use them for oxygenation - as nature is pretty good this way anyhow.
There are many practical ways to reduce fertilizer use. Stopping perverse farming subsidies is one, taxing fertilizer use is another. Reducing nox from fertilizer may increase methane residency times A On 26 Jun 2011 11:53, "BHASKAR M V" <[email protected]> wrote: > Andrew > >>In practical terms, hypoxia is best addressed indirectly, e.g. by > controlling fertilizer runoff > > This is as practical as reducing CO2 emissions. > >>Methanogenesis usually occurs below the photic zone and mixed layer - and > mixing of co2 could also be a limiting factor. Therefore biological methods > would be unlikely to be effective. > > Biological methods can remove nutrients close to the source and in the > photic layer of the tail end water body. It only when nutrients are not > removed that they sink to the depths of the water. > > regards > > Bhaskar > > On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected] >wrote: > >> It is not a safe assumption that anoxia in the water column is a factor in >> most methane emissions from water bodies. With fossil methane release, >> oxygenation is unlikely to be of much assistance. Only where methane is >> produced in the water column in anoxic or hypoxic conditions would this >> method be likely to assist significantly. >> >> In practical terms, hypoxia is best addressed indirectly, e.g. by >> controlling fertilizer runoff >> >> Only in stagnant bodies, such as the black sea, would oxygenation be likely >> to be beneficial. Methanogenesis usually occurs below the photic zone and >> mixed layer - and mixing of co2 could also be a limiting factor. Therefore >> biological methods would be unlikely to be effective. >> >> A >> On 26 Jun 2011 11:19, "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. >> > >> -- 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.
