John, Andrew - >P.S. Any brainstorming ideas like this for the methane-busting workshop, London 3-4 September, are most welcome.
Try to get Euan Nisbet, who lives there in London & and deals with methane emissions, to take part. But if you specifically want to try to exploit methanotrophy, as in this chain, I'd also suggest trying to get microbiologists involved - try calling Lynn Margulis' lab, or emailing her at [email protected] (you can say I suggested you write her) - she knows so many people. My guess would be that there are all kinds of things that would also need to be considered: oxygen might be the limiting factor for many methanotrophs, but hardly the only one. Methanotrophy involves the MMO enzymes - pMMO or sMMO - and the active sites involve metallic complexes - copper and iron, so probably their availability would be important as well. I've read of bioremediation projects attempting to use methanotrophs that have proven frustratingly limited in effect. I think in soils the majority of the methanotrophy is 'low affinity' - so it occurs where the concentration is high near where the methanogenesis takes place but right around the border of the aerobic/anaerobic zones. Are there such divisions as low & high affinity with oceanic methanotrophs? Also, if AOM (anaerobic oxidation) is also going on, too, that would be inhibited by the oxygenation proposed. In a totally different direction, since there are lots of proposals here that deal with potentially large negative side effects, the reaction of methane with atomic chlorine is very strong - I remember an atmospheric chemist once telling me how it was something like 60x more intense than methane with OH. If you could find a way to exploit that without making a total mess of everything, perhaps it would be of interest? And perhaps in a great enough emergency, what's acceptable might have to shift? Have you read Planetquake, a novel dealing with a large methane release, written under a pseudonym by a scientist involved with this issue? In a more political direction, what about trying to pressure the Arctic Council to demand that the big dirty oil companies have some kind of group emergency program in place, with various outsiders on its board, in exchange for their leasing rights on hydrate and other arctic fossil sources? There could be an arrangement where the companies together share the spoils of any trapped methane’s profits, but have the burden of maximally preventing atmospheric releases. They do have money and expertise, at least....... On Jun 26, 6:05 pm, John Nissen <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Bhaskar, > > The conversation had turned to fertilizer run-off, which is not relevant to > the Arctic. > > My rather brief and hurried email earlier today was intended to query > whether the methods that you espouse would work in the Arctic - especially > for (a) wetlands, where pools and lakes produce much of the methane in the > atmosphere (b) shallow seas, such as ESAS [1] where the methane has already > supersaturated most of bottom water and now could suddenly be emitted into > the atmosphere in vast quantities [2]. Could diatoms, sprayed onto the > water surface, produce oxygen that then filters down to methane-digesting > microbes to increase their productivity? If so, could the microbial > productivity (for digestion of methane) be further enhanced by mixing > nutrients with the diatoms in the spray? > > Cheers, > > John > > [1] ESAS = East Siberian Arctic Shelf. > > [2] Shakhova et > al:https://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&ik=0e7777dba1&view=att&th=130c25f9... > > --- > > On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 3:32 PM, BHASKAR M V <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Andrew > > > Water flows with Nitrogen and Oxygen in it. > > These do not originate in the depths of the oceans. > > These originate on the surface of earth and oceans and sinks to the depths. > > So the biological methods would remove the Nitrogen and increase oxygen at > > the surface not in the depths. > > > Any mechanical means would require equipment and energy, this would add to > > GHG emissions even when solar, wind and wave energy are partly used. > > How do you propose to install mechanical devices in the depths of the > > oceans? > > >http://epa.gov/methane/reports/05-manure.pdf > >http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/805296-PRAO0M/native/805296.pdf > > > A lot of methane is generated due to human activity on land. > > Manure, sewage, garbage land fills, rice fields, reservoirs behind dams, > > etc. > > > Please suggest a solution to this. > > > >Wave making, flow diversions and impellers are but a few. > > These are used only in ponds and small WWTPs. > > They are more expensive or require more maintenance or require more land, > > for e.g., fine bubble diffuser aerators are very energy efficient but the > > ceramic plates or membranes used are expensive. > > > regards > > > Bhaskar > > > On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Andrew Lockley > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > >> I'm not doubting that biological methods can produce oxygen. > > >> I'm simply saying that they won't be readily applicable to the dark, still > >> waters where methane is produced. > > >> There are also a lot more efficient mechanical methods than you suggest to > >> oxygenation water. Wave making, flow diversions and impellers are but a > >> few. > > >> A > >> On 26 Jun 2011 14:26, "BHASKAR M V" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > Andrew > > >> >>"..you just can't easily use them for oxygenation .." > > >> > We can. > >> > We have increased the Dissolved Oxygen level of a 100 acre lake by 4.78 > >> mg / > >> > liter in 5 days time (from 1.22 mg / liter to 7 mg / liter). > >> > The increase starts in minutes and saturation point of 9 mg / liter can > >> be > >> > reached in days and maintained forever. > > >> >>"..as nature is pretty good this way anyhow." > > >> > Human action is resulting in slow down of nature's ability to oxygenate > >> > water. > >> > Please read about all the electric aerators being used to aerate water. > >> > I estimated that 1% of all electricity consumed in USA is for aeration > >> in > >> > WWTPs, i.e., merely to mix air into water to increase the dissolved > >> oxygen > >> > level of water. > > >> > 1 kWh of electricity results in about 1 kg of oxygen increase in > >> Dissolved > >> > Oxygen (Oxygen Transfer Rate of large surface aerators). > >> > 1 kWh of electricity results in emission of about 1 kg of CO2 (if the > >> > electricity is from coal fired power plant). > >> > Polluting air to treat sewage is not the ideal solution. > > >> > Diatom biomass may have declined dramatically in the past few decades, > >> this > >> > is NOT being monitored. Increase in HABs are being monitored but not > >> > decrease in Diatoms. > > >> > Whale decimation may have contributed to decline in Diatom biomass. > >> > Nutrient pollution of lakes has caused a shift in phytoplankton from > >> Diatoms > >> > to other types which decrease dissolved oxygen levels. > >> > There are now 400 dead zones in coastal waters all over the world mostly > >> off > >> > the coasts of Europe and USA, this is mainly due to nutrient and sewage > >> > flow. > > >> > Incidentally our solution also helps reduce fertilizer use. > >> > Diatoms and plants have a lot in common. > >> > Diatoms and plants use C4 photosynthesis other phytoplantkon use C3 > >> > photosynthesis. > >> > Both require SILICA. > > >> > Plants too require silica and proper silica fertilization will help > >> reduce > >> > fertilizer consumption. > >> > Soil is made of silica but this is not bioavailable since plants can > >> only > >> > take up soluble silica. > > >> > Netherlands > > >>http://silife.nl/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=53&Item... > > >> > *OSAB3* increases the harvest of different crops (rice: 10 - 40%), > >> reduce > >> > the use of pesticides and reduces the water demand of the plant; all in > >> a > >> > substantial amount. > > >> > Singapore > >> >http://www.agro-genesis.com/product_cropscience_minerals.html#AS > > >> > *How does Agro-Silica benefit plants* > > >> > *Agro-Silica makes plants stronger and healthier* > >> > Silica is a primary fertilizing element for rice and grass crops. To > >> produce > >> > 100kg of rice yield, rice demands 14.8kg of silica which is 8 times more > >> > than nitrogen which is required at 1.8 kg. Most paddy soils have > >> > silica deficiencies > >> > and require silica to be replenished regularly into the soil. The ideal > >> > silica concentration in paddy soil is 130~180 ppm. Research has shown > >> that > >> > paddy soil containing silica less than 60 ppm produces unhealthy rice. > > >> > Australia > > >>http://www.nutri-tech.com.au/blog/2010/06/silica-the-hidden-cost-of-c... > > >> > *But There’s More* > >> > Not only does silicon offer increased pest and stress resistance. It can > >> > also provide a major fertilising response and substantial *yield > >> increases*. > >> > In a paper by J Bernal, involving research with rice and sugarcane in > >> > Columbia, just 100 to 200 kg of magnesium silicate per hectare achieved > >> > yield increases of *14.63%* in sugar cane and the increases in rice > >> ranged > >> > from *21%* to *33%* (depending upon the application rate). > > >> > 100 million tons of Urea is manufactured worldwide, this is causing a > >> huge > >> > damage - > >> > NOx emissions, algal (cyanobacteria) blooms resulting in low DO in water > >> and > >> > consequent Methane emission, etc. > > >> > regards > > >> > Bhaskar > > >> > On Sun, Jun 26, 2011 at 4:58 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 > > ... > > read more » -- 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.
