William, Congratulations on your standing in the competition. I realize that you're trying to present a broad concept and the technical details are a secondary issue. However, I would like to offer a few technical suggestions for your consideration. *Commercial vs. Non-Commercial* Your proposal states:* "The lack of a marketable product will discourage the profit-oriented, though carbon credits might make it worthwhile to dabble. But the big-quick-secure criteria mean that governments are the most likely to be effective.".* ** The microalgal biomass has multiple uses and thus value. Food, fuel and organic fertilizer are the obvious material streams that can be instituted. One novel use would be to use the algal biomass as a basic feed stock (carbon) in the production of polymeric carbon oxides which may have important use for CO2 capture in non marine environments. *"Researchers create carbon dioxide-separating polymer"<http://phys.org/news/2012-08-carbon-dioxide-separating-polymer.html> * ** *"Using supercomputers at the Department of Energy’s National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC), researchers from Haverford College have come up with a new type of two-dimensional polymer, PG-ES1, which allows, in theory, for highly efficient separation of carbon dioxide. Based on simulations, PG-ES1 is predicted to be more than 100-times as permeable to carbon dioxide than the best existing materials, while maintaining a rejection of nitrogen and methane gases that meets or exceeds the best existing materials. This allows it to act as a molecular filter that lets the carbon dioxide to pass through easily, while preventing other gases from escaping."*
** Directly sequestering the biomass, as you propose, is quick, yet the food,fuel and organic fertilizer that the biomass represents is of ever increasing value to a resource stressed world. Using the biomass to meet those needs would be more of a cycling as opposed to sequestration, yet converting the biomass for use would help reduce the need for further terrestrial resource depletion and environmental dislocation. *Open Water vs. Bio Reactors* Using, at least in the initial phase, floating bio reactors (per *Tulip*<http://rtulip.net/ocean_based_algae_production_system_provisional_patent>and *NASA* <http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/OMEGA/index.html>) to contain and control the production of algal material could potentially pay for the instillation through selling the biomass for multiple uses (above). The issue of DIC/CO2 out gassing will be/has been a point of concern with use of nutracline water. Open water use in close association with dense mariculture growth may eventually prove the DIC/CO2 out gassing issue as being within acceptable levels. Initially using bio reactors may help avoid the DIC/CO2 controversy until comprehensive field trials can tell us one way or the other about the efficacy of open water use of nutracline water. Also, the use of bio reactors allows for a controlled use of *micro minerals * <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivine> needed for truly robust algae growth. Deficiencies of silica/Fe etc. can be overcome without the complications OIF has faced and the total amount of mineral use can be kept at a minimum. Large scale mariculture in and around the type of instillation you propose can have significant environmental and economic benefits, as you have mentioned. Controlling the production values of the various stocks/crops, through containment pens, will be needed. The bio reactors for the main algal biomass production can be easily designed into the pen structure(s). The potential commercial value of the mariculture operation is significant. Most importantly, the high quality food that such large mariculture operations can produce is very much needed as our wild stocks are in rapid decline. *Energy Converting Downwellers vs. Windmills* You mentioned the downwellers envisioned by Atmocean and the "Salter Sink". Both are excellent concepts and either can be easily used in your concept. The *Shaf downweller*<https://www.dropbox.com/sh/c852tpue32fr5iy/nQDRPbSO_p>is a new entry into the field and all forms seem to be well suited to provide both downwelling *and wave energy conversion* through tapping the downwelling flow energy with an in-flow turbine. I mention this dual use of downwellers as the use of windmills can be problematic at the technical level, especially during storms, freeze ups etc.. Even if most of the biomass is diverted for non-sequestration use (food,fuel, fertilizer etc.), the use of downwellers can play an important role in surface cooling. This dual use of your proposed sequestration instillation can have significant and immediate effects on global climate if it can be shown that the shear size (and thus passive/active cooling) of the instillation(s) can moderate El Nino events. You mention: *"The push-pull pumps would likely be scattered around the outer continental shelves belonging to mid-latitude industrialized countries that can afford the project: China, Japan, U.S., Canada, and northern European countries.". *If the project was designed as a financially self supporting operation, there is no reason why it could not be located in the remote oceanic 'hot spots' which spawn these highly disruptive global weather events. It would be interesting to model (for surface cooling effect) a 'tight' formation of your system as opposed to a 'loose' formation (placed in the Eastern Pacific hot spot) and view the results. *I predict that this type of simple operational change would give us a predictable 'thermostat' for moderating El Ninos.....if......the formation is large enough.* ** *A few ending thoughts,* What you are proposing deserves close attention due to the speed which CO2 can be drawn down. If it can be coordinated with other proposals, which address resource depletion and surface cooling in critical areas, it may engender broader support at the public,policy and economic levels. I would like to call for the creation of large sanctioned oceanic test sites for field trials of projects which have a mariculture/critical environmental mitigation link. The primary governance issues would fall within the scope of the London Protocol and the prohibition on commercial 'geoengineering', using the oceans, would need to be modified to take into account that the significant mariculture commercial potential can provide important financial support for the development of the science/engineering/technology needed to survive in this unstable environment, ie. GE. I would propose that the test sites be located in the Western and Eastern Pacific in the areas which spawn El Ninos. Here is a brief video showing the 97/98 event dynamics: *Visualizing El Nino From NASA Scientific Visualization Studio* <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DbNzw1CCKHo>. This is an oceanic area which already has multiple sensor buoys/grids deployed and is well watched by satellites. The in situ thermal effects of a new installation would be easily determined. There are highly useful microalgae which can thrive at those latitudes/temperatures and the higher forms of mariculture would not be compromised. The Southern Oscillation will still be a hard driver of El Nino, more so than water teperatures, and ideas need to be generated to directly mitigate that driver. I recommend this video for those who are the non-technical sorts and who would like to understand more about El Nino: *BBC.The Life and Times of El Nino.avi* <http://bbc.the%20life%20and%20times%20of%20el%20nino.avi/> William, I hope this has been of some help. Best, Michael n Friday, July 12, 2013 7:10:28 PM UTC-7, William H. Calvin wrote: > I seem to be one of the three finalists in this geoengineering > competition, despite both judges remaining dubious and dismissive. You can > judge for yourself, as it is all at > > * > http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/20/planId/1302501 > *<http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/20/planId/1302501> > > My detailed response is in the Comment following the judges’ report. (Note > that the revised proposal you see is not the original proposal the judges > saw and from which I quoted in my reply Comment). > > The 2,000 word limit forced me to boil it down at lot but it has also > become, I hope, a bit more understandable for those who haven't been > following developments since 1983. A more complete proposal is in my short > book, *The Great CO2 Cleanup*, at the Kindle store or the PDF at * > http://WilliamCalvin.org/bk16* <http://williamcalvin.org/bk16> . > > I have until Monday to make revisions to the proposal before final > judging. Please email suggestions. If you wish to add public comments or > “Supporter” endorsements, the Comments tab has a login/register link. I am > encouraged to “use on-line social networks” to build support, something I > am not good at doing. > > This competition is my best chance so far to get a wider audience to > consider my reframing of the climate problem and its implications for the > time scale of needed climate actions. > > Thanks to many of you for earlier comments, > > -Bill > > William H. Calvin, Ph.D. > University of Washington, School of Medicine. > -- 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.
