Greg, Michael, and Chris,
We need a dynamic analysis to know what happens with upwelling as a way to supply nutrients to a macroalgae forest. During daylight, it appears possible to match the upwelling with the forest density such that the macroalgae consume CO2 or HCO3- with a corresponding increase in pH and more CO2 leaves the atmosphere (in spite of the upwelling). But we cannot easily turn the upwelling off at night and on during the day. The macroalgae may be giving off CO2 at night.
If we can demonstrate upwelling and the directly recycled nutrients growing macroalgae instead of microalgae, we should be able to demonstrate upwelling which nets CO2 removal in conjunction with an Ocean Macroalgal Afforestation (OMA) operation. OMA does not store C by downwelling. OMA first converts C to bioCH4 and bioCO2 and then stores the bioCO2 while recycling the plant nutrients. The steady-state model used for "Negative carbon via Ocean Afforestation" includes a shallow (200 meter depth) upwelling for about 30% of the nutrients. It is not possible to harvest and recycle all the plant nutrients via the anaerobic digestion step.
Mark
---------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Ocean based algal growth: rate of CO2 transfer
From: RAU greg <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, January 23, 2013 8:20 pm
To: [email protected], [email protected]
--Again, as illustrated in the attached, one of my concerns about increasing upwelling is that you increase ocean CO2 degassing to air. Surface ocean pCO2's near 700 ppm are observed during intense upwelling here off the CA coast. Yes, in theory that could be offset by marine photosynthetic uptake of CO2 (enhanced by the upwelled nutrients), but then it won't be if those nutrients are downwelled before algae and light are allowed to perform their full magic.On the other hand harvesting any marine biomass produced, and converting this to fuel or electricity could help offset fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions - policy, economics, and subsidies permitting. Would be interesting to run the numbers on simply harvesting/filtering existing marine biomass in productive areas and converting to energy (of course with non-C components returned to the ocean to keep the algae fed). Remember that such harvesting/filtering by whales and conversion to whale oil was a preferred non-fossil fuel source 150 years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Whale_Oil_and_Sperm_Oil_Imports_(1805-1905).jpgAnyone for 21rst century, genetically engineered, free-range whale ranching?Or perhaps, in the interest of not further enslaving fellow mammals, our friends at the APS could redeploy their DAC engineers to design and cost out the perfect mechanical whale ;-)-Greg
From: Michael Hayes <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Wed, January 23, 2013 5:00:01 PM
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Ocean based algal growth: rate of CO2 transferHi Folks,Chris, Dr.Calvin's focus on the Push/Pull->Sequestration aspect was an important and practical advancement concerning the general concept. I had been focused upon the practical operational aspects of a sustainable open ocean cultivation system design and his input opened my eyes to the importance to deep pumping. I had only considered the use of down welling within littoral waters to prevent dead zones. Baring anyone finding reference to an earlier description of deep pumping sequestration, I propose that such a pump be named in respect of Dr. Calvin....with his permission.Here is a well written analysis of off shore commercial macroalgae production: Marine Estate Research Report, Carbon footprint of seaweed as a biofuelThe Crown Estate manages approximately 50% of the UK foreshore and almost the entire seabed out to the 12 nautical mile limit. Part of its role is to issue leases for commercial aquaculture cultivation operations. Apart from a food source, The Crown Estate sees further commercial potential in using the marine waters around the UK, particularly around Scotland, for cultivating marine biomass in the form of macro-algae (seaweed) for energy purposes.There are a number of ways to approach large scale open ocean macroalgal cultivation systems architecture. Yet, the most stable end up mimicking a bee hive. I believe Salter Ducks would be highly useful in constructing the barriers and providing both WEC/breakwaters services. Central to each cell would be a digester and down welling (Calvin) pump(s). The barriers would support the up welling pumps.Thus, the hydraulic/surface flow (in calm seas, mild current) would be directed to the central area of the cell and then pumped to prescribed depth. The greater the number of cells, the greater the stability of the system. However, there are a legion of variables that need to be evaluated for each site.Using this basic (and easily replicable) architecture, small investment groups could acquire initial cells at minimal cost and build greater holdings as profits develop. Thus, the expansion potential is significant in both size and speed. The Seasteading of the open ocean would be much like the early farming development of the U.S. Midwest/West.
In fact, the USDA has a low interest loan of up to $300,000 for new farmers/ranchers. That type of federal investment kickstarting support for a combined Ocean GE/OAA/Seasteading effort would be transformative. As a side note, prize winning tuna now sell for >$1M ea..Working out the standards for equipment and operations is relatively straight forward using what we know about Ocean GE, marcoalgel production, aquaculture, commercial fishing gear and vessel safety standards, Admiralty Law, London Convention, etc.Chris, you're well informed on the issue of Ocean GE and your thoughts are important to any effort along these lines. Please let me know how you would revise or extend this concept.To Robert Tulip, I found your paper on "Strategic path for the development of microalgal bio-diesel in China" highly informative and well done. I hope others take the time to read it:"Once production methods are established in coastal waters, it is possible to extend this kind of algae farm in the "desert" areas of the ocean which have very low chlorophyll content. This kind of "desert" is now 50 million square kilometers and expanding in size due to global warming."As side note, Robert. Do you know that Dr. Salter worked on the original Dracone Barge design? It's the progenitor of your floating microalgal reactor.MichaelOn Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 9:42 AM, Chris <[email protected]> wrote:
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]> 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 LentonRegrettably, 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. 1994Please see page 52, second column, 1st paragraph.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 InstitutePlease, let me know your thoughts.MichaelChris Vivian.
On Friday, 18 January 2013 13:43:02 UTC, William H. Calvin wrote:KenSorry 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]--To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/KJHYR3cQO5AJ.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.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.
--
Michael Hayes--
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].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
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].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
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].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
