I'm looking for things (anything!) that will work in the Arctic. John
--- On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]>wrote: > 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.
