Bill Stahl's perceptive observationthat Ocean Iron Fertilization (ie algae
production) could be independent andprofitable as a carbon dioxide reduction
technology points to the centrality ofalgae for climate stabilisation, as a way
to mimic and industrialise naturalprocesses to provide scalable and sustainable
rapid ways to fix more carbonthan we emit and drive down CO2 ppm levels.
OIF should be consideredthe starting point for scientific research programs to
define objectives andmassively boost algae yield through a range of spinoff
technologies. For example, containing the produced algae fromOIF in the OMEGA
membrane enclosures developed by NASA, and then concentratingthis algae as a
useful commodity, offers a path to global economictransformation, turning
carbon dioxide from waste to resource.
Carbon taxes are merely anincidental distraction to this objective of carbon
dioxide removal, which willstand or fall on the capacity of new technologies to
compete against fossilfuels on purely market based economics without long term
subsidy. The role of governments is to provide seedfunding for innovation, in
recognition that global warming is a primaryplanetary security emergency.
Robert Tulip
From: Bill Stahl <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]; [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, 25 December 2014, 4:08
Subject: Re: [geo] GEOENGINEERING: Are record salmon runs in the Northwest the
result of a controversial CO2 reduction scheme?
good point Bhaskar.
What I meant to say is that as a global solution CDR requires a carbon price of
some kind to provide the engine that drives the many types, OIF, mineral
sequestration, biochar BECCS and so forth. Of all those types the fisheries OIF
you detail is the only one I can think of offhand that could be independent &
profitable - a reversal of the usual situation for CDR proponents who have a
CDR process in desperate need of an economic rationale. (How much CO2 OIF
actually does sequester is still unclear to me, other than it would vary with
circumstances).
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 4:11 AM, M V Bhaskar <[email protected]> wrote:
Bill
The actual cost of the Iron used in the Haida Nation experiment was very
low.The $ 2 million cost includes all the data collection cost and special
ships used.
You wrote -"And vice versa: pursuing CDR via a carbon price (and is there any
other serious way?) "
Yes, there is another serious way, as you have noted the cost of the Haida
Nation experiment was $ 2 million and increase in Salmon was 50 million, at
just $ 1 per salmon, this is a profit of $ 48 million.So Iron Fertilization
does NOT require carbon credits, if some of the fish can be caught and sold.
Fish in the oceans are said to have declined from about 8 to 15 Billion tons
200 years ago to about 0.8 to 2 Billion tons at present. So restoring fish back
to the earlier levels and perhaps even exceeding that limit would be very
profitable.
Billions of tons of Carbon can be sequestered merely as a by product of the
goal of increasing fish.
Regards
Bhaskar
On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 15:26:57 UTC+5:30, Bill Stahl wrote:
A belated response:
This is all very loose, but if the original cost of the project (per Bhaskar)
was $ 2 Million, and (per the quote from the National Review) the results in
the Fraser River alone were ~50 million more fish more than the previous record
(and George cites a delta of 170 million fish overall) - what is the value per
fish, or million fish? Perhaps David Lewis could guess at that. And the
resulting ROI on the 2 million USD?
On Russ George, I understand a skeptical response based on his history...& the
man courts controversy the way the Pope hold mass. But *in addition* to that I
see him used as a rhetorical foil, as a way to prove the speaker's
respectability by way of contrast. Include an open-minded paragraph on the
value of OIF research, then close out with 'except for Russ George's work which
has no value, of course'. (This is not a quote) The recent Newsweek article on
GE was an example, if I recall correctly. If the guy (and the Haida of course)
did an experiment and generated data, then that's interesting and will have
consequences. It's not as if he was beheading hamsters in bulk or something!
(Oh wait, that's entirely respectable...for neuroscience). He has moved the
subject forward, even amid a storm of disapproval.
If the world does institute a consistent carbon price, and if OIF can deliver
at a cost that makes it relevant, it will be researched regardless of whether
it is 'respectable'. If it's already a money-maker for other reasons, that will
pretty hard to stop.
Pet peeve: There is no bright line between a carbon price to reduce emissions
and a carbon price for CDR. If you pursue the first you encourage the latter,
even if you are unaware of or hostile to it. And vice versa: pursuing CDR via a
carbon price (and is there any other serious way?) won't distract from
emissions reduction because any carbon price capable of pushing CDR will have
an even stronger impact on emissions.
On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 9:07 AM, David Lewis <[email protected]> wrote:
I'm sorry to have written something anyone might take to be supportive of what
the ETC group has been doing in regard to geoengineering.
However, whenever I think about Russ George, the fact that he once claimed to
be in the process of bringing to market a lab tested cold fusion room heater
does come into my mind.
My grandfather was a salmon fisherman on the British Columbia coast. I worked
with him on his boat when I was a teenager. Hence my great interest when I
first heard about what the Haida had done. I supported the iron fertilization
project at the time. I was critical of ETC at the time. I'm with those who
say what is one application of 100 tonnes of iron compared to the sewage that
is dumped into the Pacific Ocean on a daily basis, or compared to the annual
application of fertilizer to farms on land? I support further research into
fertilizing the ocean. I think most people who fish the British Columbia coast
will be very supportive of further research.
On Friday, December 5, 2014 11:59:16 AM UTC-8, Robert Tulip wrote:
David Lewis commented on November 18 about RussGeorge and the Haida Salmon
Ocean Iron Fertilization Project. David said
"Just because a snake oilsalesman happened to find out along with the rest of
us that there areinteresting indications that, for once, his bottles may
actually have containedsomething efficacious doesn't mean his critics on this
OIF project were"persecuting" him."
It is not fair or correct to describe Russ Georgeas a snake oil salesman,
despite the problems that David describes in George'swork dating from 1999 on
another topic.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/geoengineering/dzs-Ii_V9sw/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.
--
Thanks,
Bill Stahl
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/geoengineering/dzs-Ii_V9sw/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.
--
Thanks,
Bill Stahl--
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.
--
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.
