Michael,
There has been a fundamental misunderstanding! My comments on Bill Calvin’s posts were on open phytoplankton fertilisation NOT on macroalgal aquaculture that I now see from your posts appears to be what you and Bill are talking about. There was nothing in Bill’s posts to indicate he was talking about macroalagal aquaculture! Is it intended that the macroalgae are enclosed in some sort of structure or are they open to the ocean? I had assumed the latter. I do have some comments on your responses but I don’t think there is any point in responding until it is clear what sort of scheme we are actually talking about. Chris. On Wednesday, 23 January 2013 03:53:09 UTC, Michael Hayes wrote: > Hi Folks, > > Chris, the papers you posted were greatly welcomed. Regrettably, 2 of the > 3 were pay-per view and I can only surmise the details of those 2. > > In, Dutreuil et al,* Impact of enhanced vertical mixing on marine > biogeochemistry: lessons for geo-engineering and natural variability*, I > found this rather important observation: > > *"Testing and quantifying the net effect of such a widespread deployment > of ocean pipes on atmosphere-ocean fluxes of CO2, as well as the additional > perturbations to ocean ecosystems and other climatic gases, in the field > would be a significant challenge."* > > The authors focused upon* just passive pipes in non-macroalgal (dense) > environments*. Yet still, the financial challenge in artificially > producing a mature macroalgal forest, solely for a field trial > investigation, is beyond reason and their modeling would be interesting to > look at. > > However, I believe there may be a way around this "significant" challenge > to field observations of *powered pumps.....*using the > push/pull method.....*in conjunction with*....... a mature macroalgal > forest. > > The Sargasso Sea is a natural equivalent to a possible future (mature) > large scale commercial macroalgal plantation. Different test areas, well > separated, could be equipped with the different types of gear to > investigate, in situ, nature's reaction to each configuration. > > To quote James Lovelock: *"Let's not be pessimistic about the > possibilities of pipe or they might never be tried.".* > You asked Dr. Calvin a few questions that I would like to take a shot at > answering. To streamline my responses (please read below), they are in > green. > > **** > On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 6:07 AM, Chris <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: > >> Bill,****** >> >> ** ** >> >> I don’t see how your scheme can work, in particular, “using bulk flow to >> sink the entire organic carbon soup of the wind-mixed layer (organisms plus >> the hundred-fold larger amounts of dissolved organic carbon) before its >> carbon reverts to CO2 and equilibrates with the atmosphere”. I believe >> that injecting the surface carbon 'soup' at great enough depth would >> prevent the conversion to CO2. I'll cite this paper to illustrate my point; >> >> >> > > >> *Localized subduction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the Southern >> Hemisphere oceans; *Jean-Baptiste Sallée,Richard J. Matear,Stephen R. >> Rintoul & Andrew Lenton >> >> http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n8/full/ngeo1523.html >> > > >> Regrettably, this is also a pay-per view paper and I can not point to >> details relevant to my point. I can only surmise that 'depth' is addressed >> in the subduction (sequestration) phase of the natural process. Artificial >> down pumping would mimic that natural subduction/sequestration phase. The >> isssue of "bulk flow" is addressed below. >> > > > >> I don’t see how you can possibly sink by bulk flow more than a very small >> fraction of the surface mixed layer (and the associated algae, DOC etc) >> without an unbelievably dense array of devices with intakes at various >> depths in the mixed layer. I see this as an economic issue, as opposed >> to a science, technology or engineering issue. Showing that a Pump Enhanced >> Marine Carbon Cycling and Sequestration (EMCCS) OAA Installation can >> produce an attractive profit from producing food, fuel and carbon >> trading credits, etc. (ad infinitum) would quickly generate a vast demand >> for the pumps, digesters, etc.. >> >> ** ** >> >> Some other points:**** >> >> ** ** >> >> 1. Algal blooms generated by fertilization are not continuous but >> extend over a period of time Continuous artificial algal production is >> common in large and some small hatchery operations and OAA can, with ease, >> use such methods. I would also recomend keeping a good supply of >> indiginious rotifers on hand, in dried form. They take some time to get >> started - some 2-5 days in the case of ocean iron fertilisation blooms This >> is not OIF!– and then take a further period of time to build up to a >> peak – up to 14 days or so in the case of ocean iron fertilisation blooms. >> Then they collapse! Sounds like rather poor hatchery management to me! i.e. >> you cannot continuously pump nutrients up and algae etc down at the same >> time. First, the microbial growth is secondary to the macroalgal >> cultivation! Second, I believe (and most average hatchery managers would >> agree) that continuous operations can be carried out. The system would >> be wave driven (with other RE back-ups) and simultaneous pumping (up/down) >> can be done for as long as the pumps remain functional. >> > > >> One of the issues lodged against 'Pipes' is that a sudden shut down....of >> all pipes.... would create an environmental back lash. Each OAA farm would >> be independent and the likelihood of all of them turning off.... at one >> time.... is probably quite remote. >> >> >> > > >> 2. Throughout those periods of time, the blooms and the associated >> water masses will be being dispersed in the mixed layer. Thus, keeping the >> devices associated with the blooms is likely to be challenging especially >> since you aim to tether the devices to the seabed! Again, please keep >> in mind that, the microbial growth is secondary to the macroalgal >> cultivation!**** >> > > >> **** >> >> 3. The assumption of 50g algae (dry weight) grown each day under each >> square meter of sunlit surface seems very high. Assuming a bit less than >> half of that is carbon, say 22g, then that is some 10-20 times more than >> the primary productivity of blooms measured in iron fertilization >> experiments. Again, please keep in mind that, *the microbial growth is >> secondary to the macroalgal cultivation!* >> >> >> >> 4. I don’t understand the statement “Even if no fertilization results >> from pulling up, the DIC pulled up may be only half of the ~1g/m3 DOC >> pushed down” as the DIC:DOC ratio in oceanic waters is around 50:1. The >> only relevant issue is; whether or not the artificially up welled nutrients >> can fertilize the cultivated macroalgae in oligotrophic waters....and >> produce a profit? Expanding the oceans' natural CO2 sequestration process, >> through expanding the nutrient supply out and into oligotrophic >> waters....in a profitable way...., is the whole point of this * >> Gedankenexperiment.* >> >> **** >> >> 5. Given the periods of time mentioned in 1 above, is it likely that >> little of the pulled up DIC will be released? Macroalgal DIC uptake is >> impressive judging from this paper: >> >> >> >> "Use of Macroalgae for marine Biomass Production and CO2 remediation" Gao >> et al. J.A.P. 1994 >> >> Please see page 52, second column, 1st paragraph. >> >> >> >> mel.xmu.edu.cn/upload_paper/201155112811-wse806.pdf >> >> >> > > >> Chris, et al., I would like to close by emphesizing the following points: >> > > >> 1) WEC powered pumps are fundimentialy different, in directional >> ability and volume, than the passive salt fountains (pipes) used >> in....all.... evaluations of sub thermocline nutrient use, *that I have >> found*. Thus, they should be evaluated on their own merit. I welcome >> links to any (open access) study which has covered WEC powered thermocline >> pumps *used for OAA fertilization*. >> > > >> 2) Push/Pull pumping can cycle the involved waters m3 for m3 and inject >> at any depth desired. Deployment of vast numbers of pumps are possible with >> a proven and reasonable ROI rate. >> > > >> 3) * This proposed Pump Enhanced Marine Carbon Cycling and >> Sequestration (PEMCCS) OAA method is not a re-hash of OIF!!! I'm calling >> 'apples and oranges' here. * >> >> ** >> >> 4) Relitively low cost meta-investigational evaluations can be carried >> out in natural settings which mimic future (matured) Commercial OAA, i.e. >> The Sargasso Sea. >> >> >> >> 5) The profit motive for using this method for non-GE applications can be >> substantial. Thus, science can lead or follow. Off handed rejection of >> PEMCCS-OAA, by reconized GE experts, will insure the later. Off shore * >> aquaculture* is not against anyone's law.....and....should never be so! >> > > >> 6) Beyond the commercial fishng/aquaculture industry, another non-GE >> motivator for developing sustainable off shore systems is found in this >> fledgling group; >> >> >> >> The Seasteading Institute >> > > >> http://www.seasteading.org/?gclid=CNzat8C3_bQCFQLZQgodgUgA6Q >> >> >> >> Please, let me know your thoughts. >> >> >> >> Michael >> > > > > > >> >> >> >> > > >> ** ** >> >> Chris Vivian.**** >> >> On Friday, 18 January 2013 13:43:02 UTC, William H. Calvin wrote: >> >>> Ken >>>> >>>> Sorry to miss your talk Monday in Seattle; I’m out of town for a while. >>>> >>>> I agree with you on the upwelling-only problems—and indeed I have >>>> agreed since about 2005 when you gave a nice talk at the ocean >>>> acidification workshop in Seattle. My cautions about up-only fertilization >>>> are in both my 2008 and 2012 books. So here I am talking *only* of >>>> push-pull ocean pumping. (We physiologists tend to be surrounded by >>>> push-pull pumps in the lab, which is likely why I began exploring pushing >>>> down at the same time as pulling up.) >>>> >>>> Upwelling and downwelling in combination is a different animal than >>>> up-only. For example, increasing surface ocean (and thus atmospheric) CO2 >>>> by pumping deep water up is a problem that goes away with the addition of >>>> simultaneously pushing surface water down. Even if no fertilization >>>> results >>>> from pulling up, the DIC pulled up may be only half of the ~1g/m3 DOC >>>> pushed down. With fertilization, one is pumping down both additional >>>> organisms and much more DOC. It’s important to sink this carbon soup >>>> before >>>> it has a chance to become surface DIC. >>>> >>>> My illustrative push-pull scheme is, of course, only an idealized >>>> sketch. It will take a Second Manhattan Project of real experts (such as >>>> yourself) to get it right. But my sketch does, I think, show that there is >>>> class of potential solutions that are possibly big enough (600 GtC), fast >>>> enough (20 yr), and secure enough against backsliding (for a millennium) >>>> to >>>> quality as a climate repair. >>>> >>>> Unlike anything else on the table, something like this looks capable of >>>> actually reversing the overheating, the acidification, and the thermal >>>> expansion portion of sea level rise. It would seem worth exploring. >>>> >>> -Bill [email protected] >>> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "geoengineering" group. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/KJHYR3cQO5AJ. >> >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> >> . >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> [email protected] <javascript:>. >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >> > > > > -- > *Michael Hayes* > *360-708-4976* > http://www.voglerlake.com > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/Eh8EkRl-Es0J. 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.
