Sev Clarke in reply to Michael Hayes. Thanks Michael, that feedback is indeed appreciated.
Regarding the possible aggregation of buoyant flakes on the ocean surface, I doubt that it will represent much of a problem. Each flake will tend to be acted on similarly by wind, wave and current. Spread widely as intended, the approximate previous position of each flake would soon be taken by another. Excepting where they are thrown up on beaches, that are designedly remote from their point of dissemination, they will tend to retain their initial dispersion or a little more; and, because of their limited life, they will typically not last long enough to accumulate in accretive ocean gyres, as do some of our plastic wastes. For the same reasons, they will not result in over-fertilisation, aided by the fact that, even if they did aggregate, the ultra-slow release of the largely insoluble and lignin-encased fertiliser would tend not to cause eutrophying blooms. The limited space on each flake would not permit more than one phytoplankton at a time at each site to access the flake's mineral content directly with its extractive ligands. This factor also serves to hinder dissolving iron from re-accumulating as fast-sinking particulates. I am indebted to you for directing my attention to the Lambert patent US 8535107. Whilst there are strong similarities, there are equally strong differences. Lambert uses inorganic supports, specifically expanded vermiculite and similar materials, to provide buoyancy, whilst my rice husks and the lignin that binds and encloses minute air pockets are both organic. Furthermore, Lambert uses his perlite, vermiculite, tiny hollow glass spheres and aerated ceramics as high-albedo reflectants, whereas I encourage phytoplankton to perform this task, knowing that most surfaces floating on the ocean surface will soon become coated in biofilm anyway. Lambert describes relatively large structures, such as solid pucks and arrays of buoys, that could become hazards to shipping, unlike my tiny flakes. Also, Lambert makes no apparent use of sustainable or waste materials. He uses energy-intensive methods to secure his fertilisers, and the materials that he uses are not as benign as mine to marine life - for instance ground glass is a known gastronomic hazard. Finally, as you say, Lambert's costs make his business model excessively weak. Mine is not, as the full documentation shows. My estimated carbon sequestration cost is $1.08/tonneC, which, even if were twenty times that, is still modest. P.S. My flakes are not constrained, but are to be monitored as moving, visible plumes. Fish caught and additional carbon flux within a managed plume would be subject to a royalty payment or carbon credit. Gaining international recognition for such may be one of the two the most difficult hurdles, the other being flake dissemination approval. The global cooling and extreme weather mitigation effects are thought to be non-monetizable. Best regards, Sev Clarke On Tuesday, September 2, 2014 3:04:21 PM UTC+10, [email protected] wrote: > > Sam Carana has made a good summary of two of my recent concepts that are > designed to address both climate change and ocean acidification at > http://geo-engineering.blogspot.de/2014/08/seven-ocean-fertilization-strategies.html > > Would members consider how the concepts and their supporting technologies > might be: constructively criticised, improved, their effects modelled, be > lab tested, and approved for mesocosm piloting. Full documentation is > available on request from [email protected] They are made freely > available under Creative Commons (CC BY 4.0) Attribution licensing. > -- 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/d/optout.
