Dear Robert-- 1. Fine to be thinking of algae as an alternative fuel source that would help to stabilize the carbon cycle‹the question is how much of this can be done and fine to be thinking of how to do it large scale, but that is all classed as mitigation, though one could conceive of it as being called carbon engineering or ocean farming (given fish/protein aspects). And we would all agree that if you pull CO2 out of the air, one does not have to sequester it to keep the CO2 level the same. The sequestration provision applies to fossil fuel derived energy (or CO2 from net biomass reduction via, for example, deforestation), and since replacing virtually all fossil fuel use by algae would be quite difficult.
2. Regarding the climatic effect, all of the solar energy taken up by algal growth would be released as heat when the algae is used as fuel (or along the way in its processing), so one is just displacing the heating by solar radiation‹and gradients in temperature would tend to smooth out any such differences. Because the algae is generally dark (so the solar needed for growth can be absorbed), there is no increased reflection out to space, so no solar radiation management (SRM) effect, and so no (direct) climate engineering (indirect happens in that the process limits further rise of the CO2 concentration‹the carbon engineering aspect of your proposal). 3. Regarding the magnitude of the effect, 0.02% of the ocean is about 0.014% of the Earth¹s area. Even if all solar radiation falling on this area were reflected to space, it would be about half this amount, so 0.007% of the solar radiation (this 50% reduction accounts for effects of clouds and atmospheric absorption). Your proposal would not want to reflect all the solar radiation as it needs it, so perhaps divide by 10 to get 0.0007%. Counter-balancing a CO2 doubling would require reducing the solar constant by 1.8%, so the magnitude you suggest is just way off, even if there is some reflective effect. Mike On 4/30/12 10:12 AM, "Robert Tulip" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Mike > > Thanks very much for your response. Short term carbon fixing using algae may > well be able to help stabilise and reduce both atmospheric CO2 levels and > ocean temperature, making algae production a valid geoengineering method. > > Only permanent sequestration is generally considered to have substantial > effect on CO2 level, but I disagree. If algae can provide a replacement for > fossil fuel, and also provide a commercial market to use CO2 emissions from > power stations and mines, it can substantially reduce and utlimately reverse > growth of atmospheric CO2 level. > > Lets say hypothetically we can establish 100,000 square km (10m ha) of ocean > based algae farms, covering about 0.02% of the world ocean, funded primarily > by sale of produced fuel, fish, fertilizer and fabric. At the upper limit of > yield cited by NASA OMEGA, a goal of 50 tonnes of oil per hectare per year, > production on 10 million hectares would yield 500m tonnes This is about 10% > of world oil supply of about 5 billion tonnes per year. As well, it would > produce a large amount of carbohydrate and protein suitable for fertlizer and > fish food. > > Instead of obtaining fossil carbon from under the ground, ocean based algae > production would obtain the carbon from the atmosphere, replacing a large > proportion of emissions with a sustainable energy supply and other products. > Instead of adding to atmospheric CO2, this method would help stabilise and > manage the carbon cycle, especially through non-fuel outputs. > > Algae farms on this scale would provide solar radiation management, converting > incoming sunlight into algal growth, and cooling the local ocean as a > geoengineering contribution. Algae farms at sea may prove superior to space > based SRM approaches. Algae industry could be funded by sale of produced > outputs, creating commercial incentive to support this technology that can > help address peak oil, food security and global warming. > > Ocean deserts, the growing area of low-chlorophyll sea, were estimated at 50 > million square kilometres in size in 2008, five times bigger than the land > area of the USA. Algae production in these zones would enable significant > increase in fisheries as a food supply and support for biodiversity. The > carbon from algae could be fixed in surface waters temporarily in a form that > would decrease acidity and local CO2. > > Using ocean energy to raise nutrient-rich ocean water as feedstock from below > the thermocline, combined with CO2 inputs from power plants and mines, would > create an industrial farm environment in which high yielding varieties of > algae could be bred for a range of products, as a key input to managing the > global climate. > > Some references > > http://www.sealevelcontrol.com/ocean.html - ocean aeration and upwelling. > > http://www.eng.nus.edu.sg/core/Report%20200402.pdf - engineering issues for > very large floating structures. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6oekxl0JAs&feature=player_embedded - TED talk > by Dr Jonathan Trent, head of the NASA OMEGA project. > > http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/features/2012/omega_algae_feature.html - > OMEGA Press Release April 2012 > > http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080305_oceandesert.html - NOAA > information on Ocean Deserts > > Robert Tulip > > > > > From: Mike MacCracken <[email protected]> > To: [email protected]; Geoengineering <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, 30 April 2012 11:58 AM > Subject: Re: [geo] Algae for Geoengineering > > > Re: [geo] Algae for Geoengineering > Dear Robert‹Based on prevailing definitions (as I understand your proposal), > growing algae for use as biofuels would be classified as mitigation (i.e., an > alternative form of energy) rather than as geoengineering. This is because the > use of the algae as a fuel would release the captured CO2 to the atmosphere, > later to be pulled out again in the growth of more algae. This is a fine idea, > although there may well be limits to the availability of needed nutrients in > ocean waters to accomplish this; bringing up deep water for nutrients is > certainly possible and has been proposed by others in past (perhaps even in > association with energy generation using the ocean thermal energy conversion). > Mining enough nutrients on land may well create other problems in terms of the > availability of resources, so there may be capacity problems, but growth of > algae for energy is certainly worth exploring (and be done with CO2 from some > power plants already). > > Were the proposal to be to grow the algae and then sink it to the bottom of > the ocean, then the approach could be said to be an approach to Carbon Dioxide > Removal, so a form of geoengineering. But why one would go to the effort to > create a non-fossil based source of carbonaceous material and then sink it to > the bottom of the ocean instead of use it for energy is not at all clear. > > Thus, this topic is not really within scope of our discussions, even though it > does involve use of the Earth¹s resources and natural energy to develop the > base fuel input. > > Mike MacCracken > > *** > > > On 4/27/12 9:28 PM, "Robert Tulip" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Algae for Geoengineering >> This post explains my ideas on large scale ocean based algae production as a >> possible technological breakthrough to implement geoengineering. I am an >> amateur researcher, so I accept there may be flaws in my ideas. However, >> they have not been field or lab tested, so the research is needed before >> these proposals should be dismissed. >> My work as an international development professional with the Australian >> Agency for International Development (AusAID) has exposed me a range of >> sectors climate, infrastructure, food, energy, fisheries and mining - that >> suggests to me that such a multidisciplinary innovative proposal is needed >> for real progress. I would welcome advice on the feasibility of this >> proposal and potential strategies for research and pilot testing. These >> ideas are in the public domain, and while I explored patenting, I did not >> proceed. My main interest is to contribute to real response to global >> problems. >> My proposal is to grow algae in large floating ponds, initially in shallow >> warm sheltered seas, with buoyancy, stability, transport and pumping provided >> by plastic bags of fresh water. Relative density of fresh and salt water >> means 1/40th of a fresh water bag will float above the ocean surface. Using >> energy from sun, wave, wind, tide and current, such fresh water bags can pump >> nutrient-rich water across a shallow sheet of plastic to optimise algae >> growth. This idea builds on NASA¹s work on Offshore Membrane Enclosures to >> Grow Algae (OMEGA) and Mr Terry Spragg¹s waterbag invention. It mimics both >> the original natural process of petroleum deposition and the upwelling of >> deep water for algae production. >> My related inventions include use of wave energy to sink bags of algated >> water deep in the ocean in order to use pressure to dewater it and separate >> oil, use of wave pumping to aerate the system and enable rapid temporary >> sinking in event of storm, use of water bags as tidal pumps for both >> nutrient-rich deep water and CO2 inputs, and use of waterbags to support >> ocean structures and to transport water and other commodities. >> Geoengineering is advanced as a solution to global warming, using solar >> radiation management and carbon dioxide removal. Main constraints are cost, >> acceptability and effectiveness. This proposal addresses these >> geoengineering constraints as follows: >> Cost: the aim is to use algae to produce biofuel, and other commercial >> commodities such as food, fertilizer and fabric. Aiming for profitable >> commercial operation is essential for rapid scalability. Aiming for use of >> 100% renewable energy sources based on low capital expenditure and operating >> expenditure methods is a key to profitability. Using produced algae for >> fabric to build the ponds and bags can provide a potential cheap and >> sustainable material that will also provide short term sequestration. >> Species selection can enable highly productive algae growth, orders of >> magnitude above other plants. >> Acceptability: The primary aim is ecological sustainability. This method has >> potential to rapidly remove CO2 from the air on large scale, mitigating >> likelihood of a climate crisis. It is also designed to reduce ocean acidity >> and temperature, so could be located in strategic places of high risk such as >> coral reefs and the Arctic to help insure against these risks. As well, >> co-location with CO2 emitters (eg Gorgon Gas on Australia North West Shelf) >> presents a commercial sequestration and commodity production method with >> potential for investment by extractive industry firms. My very rough >> calculation is that placement of algae ponds on about 0.1% of the global >> ocean would be enough to balance all human CO2 emissions. The scale of the >> world ocean (71% of planet surface) means that initial acceptable test >> locations should be readily available. As such, it presents a pragmatic >> method to enable continuation of the fossil fuel economy alongside growth of >> a new replacement system. >> Effectiveness: This method combines the goals of solar radiation management >> and carbon dioxide removal to produce profitable products and mitigate and >> adapt to climate change and resource constraints. Ponds on the ocean surface >> aim to transform as much as possible incoming solar heat into algae, >> significantly cooling the local ocean and providing a transportable >> concentrated energy source. Combination with other CO2 removal technologies >> can enable a local use of the captured CO2 to produce commercial products >> from algae. Coastal coal fired power plants are a potential major CO2 >> source. It may be possible to use produced algae as a fuel source for >> electricity plants. >> My documents are at >> http://rtulip.net/ocean_based_algae_production_system_provisional_patent >> <http://rtulip.net/ocean_based_algae_production_system_provisional_patent> >> I encourage readers to look at the linked documents at this site. I am sure >> you will see some ideas that you will regard as impractical, but I urge you >> to set aside any Œblue sky¹ material and focus on whether there is anything >> with practical potential. To date, none of these ideas have been prototyped >> or lab tested. I would welcome interest in taking this forward. >> Sincerely >> Robert Tulip -- 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.
