Greg, What I'm struggling to weave together is a method which can address food,fuel,fertilizer and environmental needs while keeping an eye on the socioeconomic dynamics which brought us to this point. A meta concept which can coordinate these fundamental needs and dynamics may be possible, IMHO.
The suggestion to convert the biomass to HCO3 is interesting and it would represent a commercial by-product. The production of CO3, at first thought, showed no practical commercial use. Then I realized that it is an oxocarbon. Thus, it may be possible to carry the biomass conversion out to the extent of producing polymeric carbon oxide. I found this related paper which shows the potential for such a material: *Carbon Dioxide Separation through Polymeric Membrane Systems for <http://www.benthamscience.com/cheng/samples/cheng%201-1/Sandra%20E.%20Kentish.pdf> * *Flue Gas Applications<http://www.benthamscience.com/cheng/samples/cheng%201-1/Sandra%20E.%20Kentish.pdf>, Colin A. Scholes, Sandra E. Kentish* and Geoff W. Stevens* * * *"Abstract: The capture and storage of carbon dioxide has been identified as one potential solution to greenhouse gas * *driven climate change. Efficient separation technologies are required for removal of carbon dioxide from flue gas streams * *to allow this solution to be widely implemented. A developing technology is membrane gas separation, which is more * *compact, energy efficient and possibly more economical than mature technologies, such as solvent absorption. This * *review examines the recent patented developments in polymeric based membranes designed for carbon dioxide separation * *from mixed-gas systems. Initially, the background to polymeric membrane separation is provided, with an overview of * *past polymeric designs. This is followed by a discussion on the current state of the art; in particular developments in * *mixed matrix polymeric membranes and facilitated transport polymeric membranes for improved carbon dioxide * *permeation and selectivity. Recent developments in other membrane types, carbon and inorganic, are reviewed for * *comparison purposes with polymeric developments. Finally, a brief comment on the future directions of polymeric * *membrane gas separation technologies is provided" * Thank you for the suggestions and correcting my misconceptions. Best, Michael On Friday, June 28, 2013 5:00:57 PM UTC-7, andrewjlockley wrote: > > Poster's note: Some interesting stuff on ocean pipes, etc. Lots of > links in web version. > > http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/brin20130628 > > The Science of Climate and Geo-engineering… and more > > David Brin > Ethical Technology > > Posted: Jun 28, 2013 > > On June 18 I joined a blue ribbon panel (via Google Hangout) on the > topic of Reinventing Climate Management: Staring Down the Possibility > of Geoengineering, led by scenario thinker Jamais Cascio, author of > the book Hacking the Earth: Understanding Geoengineering. He moderated > a terrific group of scientists and other innovators (plus me… for > comic relief I guess) wrestling with this issue, joined by visitors > from the web with questions and ideas. > > Managing the climate in the face of global warming is a wicked problem > that requires getting almost every independent nation to coordinate. > What would a system of global governance look like that's up to the > true challenges ahead? And how do we start thinking about whether we > need to take more desperate steps in the form of geoengineering? > > I came away from the discussion convinced, yet again, that some things > merit much closer examination and experimentation. Out of all of the > ideas that have been raised for either removing carbon from the > atmosphere or reducing the sunlight that feeds the greenhouse, only > one would attempt to emulate nature's own process for removing CO2, > the way by far the largest amount has already been removed -- through > chemical and biological sequestration in the open ocean. That proposal > is Ocean Fertilization. > > Yes, yes we have all read about silly, half-baked "experiments" in > which poorly instrumented boats dumped tons of iron dust into ocean > currents. These created plankton blooms, all right, but also > questionable after-effects. They did not get very good press. And > they poisoned the well - so to speak - for more intelligent proposals > that would more closely emulate what Nature, herself does. > > And if anyone gets tentative rights to "speak for Mother Nature" it > would be James Lovelock, author of the Gaia hypothesis. With Chris > Rapley, director of the Science Museum in London, Lovelock proposed > trying an option that would place vertical pipes some 200 meters long > in the sea to pump nutrient-rich water from depth to the surface, thus > enhancing the growth of algae in the upper ocean. The algae, which are > key in transporting carbon dioxide to the deep sea and producing > dimethyl sulphide involved in the formation of sunlight-reflecting > clouds, should help to prevent further warming. According to his note > in Nature: > > "Although fertilizing the ocean with iron as a way of stimulating > algal growth is being considered, the use of pipes to use the ocean’s > existing nutrients as fertilizer is certainly novel." > > Well… novel? Except that ocean bi-layer nutrient mixing was shown to > readers way back in my novel EARTH (1989). Our friend, The > Economist's Oliver Morton, wrote an extensive blog on the > Lovelock/Rapely proposal -- which may get funding from the Gates > Foundation for preliminary research. And Morton fairly describes some > of the critics, as well: > > “The concept is flawed,” says Scott Doney, a marine chemist at WHOI. > He says it neglects the fact that deeper waters with high nutrients > also generally contain a lot of dissolved inorganic carbon, including > dissolved CO2. Bringing these waters to the lower pressures of the > surface would result in the CO2 bubbling out into the air." > > Well, then shouldn't we look into it and find out? > > Might this concept be compatible with Nathan Myhrvold’s innovation… > pumping warm surface water below the thermocline? As reported by > Oliver Morton, the system would be something a bit like a floating > paddling pool with a long pipe dangling down from its centre. Because > there will be waves outside the pool but not inside, water will splash > in over its edge but not out, and so the water level inside the pool > is higher than the level outside the pool, providing the downward > force. A company called Atmocean has in fact built prototype systems > which aim to do it in almost exactly the opposite way to the Searete > patents, by using wave power to pump cool water up, but the effect > would be the same, spreading nutrients from below to where the > sunlight is… > > …exactly what happens in the world's greatest fisheries, off Chile, > the Grand Banks and Antarctica. Why do extra nutrients spur fecundity > and ocean health in those places, but not in "dying seas" that suffer > from eutrification (death by excess fertilizing runoff from > agriculture), like the Gulf of Mexico, the Mediterranean and > especially the Black Sea? Well… just look at them! The difference > should be obvious to the eye. The choked seas do not "drain well." > > Let's make a parallel. It is said that ninety percent of the oceans > are "desert" realms where very little lives, because of lack of > nutrients to feed a food chain… mostly the stuff that you find in > "dirt." Now turn back onto the continents. What do we sometimes do to > make deserts bloom? Onland we irrigated, bringing water to soil. At > sea the proposal is to bring "soil" to the water in a sense. (The > mouths of most river systems are also generally fecund.) > > Ah, you answer, but hasn't irrigation been a mixed blessing, and often > a downright curse? Yes! Our ancestors ruined the so-called "Fertile > Crescent" by pouring river water over fields, allowing salts and toxic > metals to accumulate until the land died. But this did not happen > everywhere. Many regions -- e.g. the Ganges valley and the Yangtze -- > have been heavily irrigated for thousands of years without suffering > desertification. Again, the reason should be eye-obvious: Those river > valleys had good drainage, allowing salts to be washed away by > monsoons. > > The Gulf Stream, the Antarctic Current, and the fisheries near Chile > are not enclosed seas -- they flow. So ocean fertilization > experiments should start where strong currents can disperse the > plankton blooms. So let's try some of the more natural-like layer > mixing or bottom stirring proposals. And let's see if we can make > another Grand Banks somewhere. > > == Another concept == > > A truly ambitious concept for ocean fertilization by layer mixing > would go beyond those mentioned above. It would use pipes more than > 1000 meters long and power them by planting the bottom end right atop > an oceanic hydrothermal (volcanic) vent! > > A thousand meters? Atop a volcanic vent? Well… I think we should try > some simpler mixing methods, first. > > == More factors == > > Again, Oliver Morton (in private correspondence) explained why the > first recourse in ocean fert has always been iron.: "Iron is > interesting because its a *micro*nutrient. That gives it great > stoichiometry -- you can see in the literature estimates of C:Fe > ratios of around 100,000:1, IIRC. That gets you a lot of C for a tonne > of Fe. As I understood it you were suggesting mobilising phosphorous > reserves in ocean sediments or deepwater. For phosphate fertilizaton > the ratio is 106:1 -- the ideal Redfield ratio of C to P in marine > biomass. The practical ratio, given losses, would almost certainly be > a lot less; for iron it is more than 10 times less. If that were true > for macronutrient fertilization, you'd get only a few tonnes of C > stored for every tonne of P mobilized. There have to be better ways of > getting rid of a tonne of C than that. You might do better -- 10 > tonnes C, maybe 30? But that still means a vast mass-moving operation > to work at the desired gigatonne C level, because you would have to > mobiliza a lot of tonnes of sediment or bottom water to deliver one > tonne of P. This is a very different and more extensive infrastructure > than needed for iron fertilization." (See Morton's survey of > geoengineering schemes in Nature: Climate Crunch: Great White Hope .) > > Wow. Okay. Look, I never doubted than iron fertilization was > efficient, compared to ocean bottom stirring, or bi-layer mixing. > What I maintain is that not enough attention has been paid to studying > the most effective parts of the ocean - e.g. the Grand Banks and Chile > and Antarctica -- to determine if they are also big net carbon sinks, > as well as fantastic fisheries. It does not seem to have occurred to > anyone that there might be other places on Earth that have almost the > right conditions and that might be tipped into similar fecundity with > just a little help. > > Instead, the reflex is to assume that all meddling is always bad, all > the time. Indeed, the metaphor I used was irrigation and that was the > very reflex. We all know what shortsighted irrigation did to the > Fertile Crescent... and that metaphor makes us ignore the lessons of > other watersheds that remained productive and healthy for 4000 years. > Again, this is the main difference between Chile, Labrador, > Antarctica... and the eutrophic dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico and > Mediterranean and Black Sea. > > To my knowledge, this consideration was not handled well in most of > the iron experiments. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
