Robert, . The foreward osmosis membrain is not robust enough for any use beyond whatTrent has indicated. Large scale off shore algal farms will need ridgid tanks.
To better unstand just how inept thin film is in the open ocean, simply take a thin plastic trash bag (it is equivalent to a f.o membrain) out to the surf and try using in the water. Beyond the obvious mechanical factors; If you were an investor, with even a minor grasp of real world oceanic conditions, would you pick fragile film tubes or robust tanks to risk your money on? Michael Sent with Verizon Mobile Email ---Original Message--- From: [email protected] Sent: 12/26/2014 12:08 am To: [email protected], [email protected] Cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Subject: Re: [geo] GEOENGINEERING: Are record salmon runs in the Northwest the result of a controversial CO2 reduction scheme? 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 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. -- 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.
