RE: [geo] SOS 2017 Session spotlight 4 - Ocean NETs - CO2 Sequestration Via Ocean-Based Negative Emissions Technologies

[Michael Hayes]

Andrew et al.,

A new paper has emerged on the issue of environmental governance.

In my first view, the authors lay down a few important foundation lines.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S146290111730254X

The basket of sciences and technologies that can support the Dutch
environmental governance model is larger than many believe.

Best,

Michael
On Sep 18, 2017 7:20 AM, "Andrew Lockley" <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote:

> For clarity, I meant that the energy losses pumping from below the
> thermocline are modest. Comparable to pumping water for domestic use.
>
> A
>
> On 16 Sep 2017 01:08, "Peter Flynn" <pcfl...@ualberta.ca> wrote:
>
>> Andrew,
>>
>>
>>
>> I’m not sure I understand your comment that deep water isn’t that deep.
>> Typical numbers for the shallow ocean are a depth of 200 meter, with a
>> thermocline between 200 and 1000 meters and a very consistent temperature
>> and salinity below 1000 meters. See, for example:
>>
>>
>>
>> https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/thermocline.html
>>
>>
>>
>> One could bring the deep ocean from 1000 meters to surface in a sealed
>> tube; it would take energy. I don’t know the permanent salt fountain well
>> enough to comment on it.
>>
>>
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>
>> Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.
>>
>> Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers
>>
>> Department of Mechanical Engineering
>>
>> University of Alberta
>>
>> peter.fl...@ualberta.ca
>>
>> cell: 928 451 4455 <(928)%20451-4455>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Andrew Lockley [mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* Friday, September 15, 2017 11:54 AM
>> *To:* Peter Flynn <pcfl...@ualberta.ca>
>> *Cc:* Jason Zhou <jasonsj.z...@gmail.com>; geoengineering <
>> geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; kcalde...@stanford.edu
>> *Subject:* RE: [geo] SOS 2017 Session spotlight 4 - Ocean NETs - CO2
>> Sequestration Via Ocean-Based Negative Emissions Technologies
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks Peter. However, you don't address whether pumping water into
>> sealed tubes or greenhouses would be viable.
>>
>>
>>
>> Deep water isn't that deep - water for my toilet is pumped much further.
>>
>>
>>
>> As long as the water lifted was kept away from the atmosphere and surface
>> ocean, it should be effective at fertilization of algae without releasing
>> CO2
>>
>>
>>
>> A
>>
>>
>>
>> On 15 Sep 2017 18:15, "Peter Flynn" <pcfl...@ualberta.ca> wrote:
>>
>> This prompts several comments, and apologies for the delay and to those
>> for whom this is too basic:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. The ocean can be thought of as two relatively independent bodies of
>> water, the shallow and deep ocean. There is a fairly sharp boundary between
>> the two, called the thermocline. Transfer between the two is limited, as
>> discussed below. Once something in solution is in the deep ocean, on
>> average its residence time before getting to the shallow ocean is 600 to
>> 1000 years. This is an average; there are regions of the ocean where
>> circulation between the deep and shallow ocean is very limited, and the
>> site specific residence time is longer.
>>
>>
>>
>> The deep ocean is cold and dense. Mixing with the shallow ocean is
>> energetically difficult because of the energy required to move a dense
>> element up against gravity across the thermocline into a less dense zone.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. The interaction between shallow and deep is limited to downwelling and
>> upwelling currents. There are two major zones of downwelling current, a
>> zone in the north Atlantic called the GIN (named for its proximity to
>> Greenland, Iceland, and Norway) and a zone in the Antarctic by the Weddell
>> Sea. The GIN downwelling current is called the North Atlantic Deep Water
>> (NADW), and is the countervailing flow to the Gulf Stream. Downwelling is
>> driven by a combination of temperature and high salinity (the high salinity
>> is in part driven by evaporation in the Mediterranean Sea, a current from
>> which joins the Gulf Stream). NADW and the companion Gulf Stream were
>> interrupted for about 1200 years when Lake Agassiz, a glacial fresh water
>> lake in North America, flowed into the Atlantic after an ice dam melted.
>> The result was a 1200 year European cold period known as the Younger Dryas.
>>
>>

RE: [geo] SOS 2017 Session spotlight 4 - Ocean NETs - CO2 Sequestration Via Ocean-Based Negative Emissions Technologies

[Michael Hayes]

Mark, et al.,

Containment has many benefits and patents in that area may have a broad
future.

There is enough use in the marine space for all forms of containment to
keep that IP field active for more than a generation.

Most all of the technologies that have gained the interests of this
geoengineering list can be accommodated in and or by the Blue Biochar
communities.

Stratospheric injection of sulfur is the exception yet that same hardware
can be easily used by Oceanic Farms. The farms will use the sulfur as a
nutrient.

Best,

Michael
On Sep 19, 2017 5:41 PM, "Mark Capron" <markcap...@podenergy.org> wrote:

> Michael,
>
> Hydrates are good, but must be contained.  When a CO2-hydrate is in
> contact with water that is not saturated with CO2 (about 60,000 ppm
> depending on depth, temperature, and salinity) the hydrate disassociates.
>
> Hydrate of CO2 are more dense than seawater.  Hydrate of CH4 is less
> dense.  Blends will vary.
>
> I believe everything you need to calculate actual concentrations,
> temperatures, hydrate formation rate, etc. is in attached paper.
>
> Mark
>
> -Original Message-
> From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@
> googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Michael Hayes
> Sent: Sunday, September 17, 2017 6:36 PM
> To: geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [geo] SOS 2017 Session spotlight 4 - Ocean NETs - CO2
> Sequestration Via Ocean-Based Negative Emissions Technologies
>
> Greg et al.,
>
> 1) The Perpetual Salt Fountain can be rigged to produce super cooled brine
> as well as act as desalination and OTEC pumps.
>
> One unique thing about using resources is that this super cool brine
> production will trap CO2 / CH4 and deposit them as hydrates on the sea
> floor, if the depth permits.
>
> An important ancillary benefit is that it would also allow the OTEC
> operation to avoid thermal dumping.
>
> 2) maximum utilization of carbon requires high-throughput, vast volume
> capacity, low cost yet long life reactors. That can now be done.
>
> 3) The AWL operation can accelerate biorock infrastructure production in
> support of vast scale grow tank operations. The infrastructure itself can
> become a significant carbon sink.
>
> 4) The atmospheric hydroxyl cycle, using rather simple technology, can be
> the primary heat sink while accelerating the weathering of atmospheric
> greenhouse gases that pass through the technology.
>
>
> In summary, growing grow tanks is cheap and easy. Lifting raw nutrients
> into floating grow tanks is not a problem. The infrastructure is scalable
> and rapid.
>
> Everything is made from the oceans and the bulk of the excess carbon is
> used in soils and/or consumer goods.
>
> Best,
>
> Michael
>
>
> --
> 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: [geo] SOS 2017 Session spotlight 4 - Ocean NETs - CO2 Sequestration Via Ocean-Based Negative Emissions Technologies

[Andrew Lockley]

For clarity, I meant that the energy losses pumping from below the
thermocline are modest. Comparable to pumping water for domestic use.

A

On 16 Sep 2017 01:08, "Peter Flynn" <pcfl...@ualberta.ca> wrote:

> Andrew,
>
>
>
> I’m not sure I understand your comment that deep water isn’t that deep.
> Typical numbers for the shallow ocean are a depth of 200 meter, with a
> thermocline between 200 and 1000 meters and a very consistent temperature
> and salinity below 1000 meters. See, for example:
>
>
>
> https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/thermocline.html
>
>
>
> One could bring the deep ocean from 1000 meters to surface in a sealed
> tube; it would take energy. I don’t know the permanent salt fountain well
> enough to comment on it.
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.
>
> Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers
>
> Department of Mechanical Engineering
>
> University of Alberta
>
> peter.fl...@ualberta.ca
>
> cell: 928 451 4455 <(928)%20451-4455>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Andrew Lockley [mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, September 15, 2017 11:54 AM
> *To:* Peter Flynn <pcfl...@ualberta.ca>
> *Cc:* Jason Zhou <jasonsj.z...@gmail.com>; geoengineering <
> geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; kcalde...@stanford.edu
> *Subject:* RE: [geo] SOS 2017 Session spotlight 4 - Ocean NETs - CO2
> Sequestration Via Ocean-Based Negative Emissions Technologies
>
>
>
> Thanks Peter. However, you don't address whether pumping water into sealed
> tubes or greenhouses would be viable.
>
>
>
> Deep water isn't that deep - water for my toilet is pumped much further.
>
>
>
> As long as the water lifted was kept away from the atmosphere and surface
> ocean, it should be effective at fertilization of algae without releasing
> CO2
>
>
>
> A
>
>
>
> On 15 Sep 2017 18:15, "Peter Flynn" <pcfl...@ualberta.ca> wrote:
>
> This prompts several comments, and apologies for the delay and to those
> for whom this is too basic:
>
>
>
> 1. The ocean can be thought of as two relatively independent bodies of
> water, the shallow and deep ocean. There is a fairly sharp boundary between
> the two, called the thermocline. Transfer between the two is limited, as
> discussed below. Once something in solution is in the deep ocean, on
> average its residence time before getting to the shallow ocean is 600 to
> 1000 years. This is an average; there are regions of the ocean where
> circulation between the deep and shallow ocean is very limited, and the
> site specific residence time is longer.
>
>
>
> The deep ocean is cold and dense. Mixing with the shallow ocean is
> energetically difficult because of the energy required to move a dense
> element up against gravity across the thermocline into a less dense zone.
>
>
>
> 2. The interaction between shallow and deep is limited to downwelling and
> upwelling currents. There are two major zones of downwelling current, a
> zone in the north Atlantic called the GIN (named for its proximity to
> Greenland, Iceland, and Norway) and a zone in the Antarctic by the Weddell
> Sea. The GIN downwelling current is called the North Atlantic Deep Water
> (NADW), and is the countervailing flow to the Gulf Stream. Downwelling is
> driven by a combination of temperature and high salinity (the high salinity
> is in part driven by evaporation in the Mediterranean Sea, a current from
> which joins the Gulf Stream). NADW and the companion Gulf Stream were
> interrupted for about 1200 years when Lake Agassiz, a glacial fresh water
> lake in North America, flowed into the Atlantic after an ice dam melted.
> The result was a 1200 year European cold period known as the Younger Dryas.
>
>
>
> Europe has centers of high population at latitudes higher than any other
> region on the globe; the Gulf Stream is credited for enabling this. One
> concern cited about global warming is that melting of Greenland ice could
> interrupt the NADW / Gulf Stream again: the irony is that an early product
> of global warming could be a European “ice age”.
>
>
>
> 3. Songjian Zhou and I looked at whether one could move CO2 from the
> atmosphere into the deep ocean by increasing the concentration of CO2 in
> NADW. Our answer was no: the surface water descending into the NADW was
> saturated in CO2. But the deep ocean is not saturated in CO2, because of
> its higher pressure.
>
>
>
> 4. Hence discussion of moving deep ocean water into the shallow ocean
> baffles me. Yes: it contains nutrients. But it also contains CO2, which
> would flash as the pressure dropped and tem

Re: [geo] SOS 2017 Session spotlight 4 - Ocean NETs - CO2 Sequestration Via Ocean-Based Negative Emissions Technologies

[Michael Hayes]

Greg et al.,

1) The Perpetual Salt Fountain can be rigged to produce super cooled brine as 
well as act as desalination and OTEC pumps.

One unique thing about using resources is that this super cool brine production 
will trap CO2 / CH4 and deposit them as hydrates on the sea floor, if the depth 
permits.

An important ancillary benefit is that it would also allow the OTEC operation 
to avoid thermal dumping.

2) maximum utilization of carbon requires high-throughput, vast volume 
capacity, low cost yet long life reactors. That can now be done.

3) The AWL operation can accelerate biorock infrastructure production in 
support of vast scale grow tank operations. The infrastructure itself can 
become a significant carbon sink.

4) The atmospheric hydroxyl cycle, using rather simple technology, can be the 
primary heat sink while accelerating the weathering of atmospheric greenhouse 
gases that pass through the technology.


In summary, growing grow tanks is cheap and easy. Lifting raw nutrients into 
floating grow tanks is not a problem. The infrastructure is scalable and rapid. 

Everything is made from the oceans and the bulk of the excess carbon is used in 
soils and/or consumer goods.

Best,

Michael


-- 
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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

RE: [geo] SOS 2017 Session spotlight 4 - Ocean NETs - CO2 Sequestration Via Ocean-Based Negative Emissions Technologies

[Peter Flynn]

Andrew,



I’m not sure I understand your comment that deep water isn’t that deep.
Typical numbers for the shallow ocean are a depth of 200 meter, with a
thermocline between 200 and 1000 meters and a very consistent temperature
and salinity below 1000 meters. See, for example:



https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/thermocline.html



One could bring the deep ocean from 1000 meters to surface in a sealed
tube; it would take energy. I don’t know the permanent salt fountain well
enough to comment on it.



Peter



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca

cell: 928 451 4455







*From:* Andrew Lockley [mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Friday, September 15, 2017 11:54 AM
*To:* Peter Flynn <pcfl...@ualberta.ca>
*Cc:* Jason Zhou <jasonsj.z...@gmail.com>; geoengineering <
geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; kcalde...@stanford.edu
*Subject:* RE: [geo] SOS 2017 Session spotlight 4 - Ocean NETs - CO2
Sequestration Via Ocean-Based Negative Emissions Technologies



Thanks Peter. However, you don't address whether pumping water into sealed
tubes or greenhouses would be viable.



Deep water isn't that deep - water for my toilet is pumped much further.



As long as the water lifted was kept away from the atmosphere and surface
ocean, it should be effective at fertilization of algae without releasing
CO2



A



On 15 Sep 2017 18:15, "Peter Flynn" <pcfl...@ualberta.ca> wrote:

This prompts several comments, and apologies for the delay and to those for
whom this is too basic:



1. The ocean can be thought of as two relatively independent bodies of
water, the shallow and deep ocean. There is a fairly sharp boundary between
the two, called the thermocline. Transfer between the two is limited, as
discussed below. Once something in solution is in the deep ocean, on
average its residence time before getting to the shallow ocean is 600 to
1000 years. This is an average; there are regions of the ocean where
circulation between the deep and shallow ocean is very limited, and the
site specific residence time is longer.



The deep ocean is cold and dense. Mixing with the shallow ocean is
energetically difficult because of the energy required to move a dense
element up against gravity across the thermocline into a less dense zone.



2. The interaction between shallow and deep is limited to downwelling and
upwelling currents. There are two major zones of downwelling current, a
zone in the north Atlantic called the GIN (named for its proximity to
Greenland, Iceland, and Norway) and a zone in the Antarctic by the Weddell
Sea. The GIN downwelling current is called the North Atlantic Deep Water
(NADW), and is the countervailing flow to the Gulf Stream. Downwelling is
driven by a combination of temperature and high salinity (the high salinity
is in part driven by evaporation in the Mediterranean Sea, a current from
which joins the Gulf Stream). NADW and the companion Gulf Stream were
interrupted for about 1200 years when Lake Agassiz, a glacial fresh water
lake in North America, flowed into the Atlantic after an ice dam melted.
The result was a 1200 year European cold period known as the Younger Dryas.



Europe has centers of high population at latitudes higher than any other
region on the globe; the Gulf Stream is credited for enabling this. One
concern cited about global warming is that melting of Greenland ice could
interrupt the NADW / Gulf Stream again: the irony is that an early product
of global warming could be a European “ice age”.



3. Songjian Zhou and I looked at whether one could move CO2 from the
atmosphere into the deep ocean by increasing the concentration of CO2 in
NADW. Our answer was no: the surface water descending into the NADW was
saturated in CO2. But the deep ocean is not saturated in CO2, because of
its higher pressure.



4. Hence discussion of moving deep ocean water into the shallow ocean
baffles me. Yes: it contains nutrients. But it also contains CO2, which
would flash as the pressure dropped and temperature increased. It strikes
me that we should think of the deep ocean as the sink for CO2, not a source
of a “fix”. Any plan to use the nutrients in the deep ocean to grow marine
biomass to be sunk into the deep ocean (or utilized as biofuel) would have
to be carefully tested against the CO2 release.



5. Glen Tichkowsky and I looked at a scheme in which ocean side pools of
sea water would be used to grow algae. Evaporation would increase the
salinity  of the pond to a point where the water could be moved as a batch
into the deep ocean without pumping. The rate limiting step, by an order of
magnitude, was the rate of transfer of CO2 from atmosphere to ocean; it was
sufficiently slow to make the cost of carbon sequestration by this scheme
prohibitive. I understood after this work why commercial algae growing
operations o

RE: [geo] SOS 2017 Session spotlight 4 - Ocean NETs - CO2 Sequestration Via Ocean-Based Negative Emissions Technologies

[Peter Flynn]

I’m having a problem replying to Greg Rau’s e mail, so I’m trying to do
this via a response to Klaus’ e mail.



One concern about using the deep ocean as a heat sink is the increased
volume / reduced density as temperature rises, causing sea level rise. I
have done no calculations, so I have no idea if this is a 50 year problem
or a 50,000 year problem.



There is a way to radiate heat to space from the ocean: pump sea water on
top of existing ice. Ice formation at the bottom of an ice sheet is
insulated by the thickness of the existing ice. Moving water onto the top
of the ice increases heat transfer substantially: this is the basis of
making ice roads, bridges and islands (drilling platforms) in the Arctic.
Some of the heat lost to the atmosphere will be kept in the atmosphere, but
some will radiate into space in the long Arctic night. Songjian Zhou and I
looked at forming incremental sea ice in the Arctic, although our
motivation was the potential stimulation of the NADW in the event that
Greenland ice melt weakened it. Regardless: one can “use” the higher heat
transfer rate at the top of existing sea ice to get heat out of the ocean,
and some of that into space.



Peter



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca

cell: 928 451 4455







*From:* Klaus Lackner [mailto:klaus.lack...@asu.edu]
*Sent:* Friday, September 15, 2017 11:56 AM
*To:* pcfl...@ualberta.ca; kcalde...@stanford.edu; Geoengineering <
geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
*Cc:* Jason Zhou <jasonsj.z...@gmail.com>; Anna Hammond <
ahamm...@educatedc.com>
*Subject:* Re: [geo] SOS 2017 Session spotlight 4 - Ocean NETs - CO2
Sequestration Via Ocean-Based Negative Emissions Technologies



I agree with all of that. The shallow ocean has neither the storage
capacity nor the residence time to be a good site for storing CO2.   While
ocean currents may not make it possible to push CO2 down into the deep
ocean, you have technical options. For example, you literally could pump
liquid CO2 to the ocean floor.  However, as Peter points out the residence
time is still short compared to the time CO2 impacts the environment.  I
don’t think it is appropriate to solve our climate problem now and leave it
for future generations to figure out how to manage the CO2 release from
upwelling.  If we think of solutions to the problem they need to be
permanent.  This is not entirely an academic perspective.  I would like to
point out that a large part of the antipathy to nuclear power came from the
observation that engineers are loath to guarantee storage times of 100,000
years. People asked, what will happen to future generations. There seems to
be part of the human psyche that reacts to such long-term messes.   If you
want public buy in, you better be able to make the case that the action
which put the carbon in storage, actually solved the problem.



There is a different problem with overshoot management, here you could
convince people that we first and foremost have to buy ourselves 50 years,
and at the end of this period we have to have figured out how to do it
right.  For that reason, I am supportive of growing trees and do other
things that hide carbon for a few decades, with the understanding that it
will have to be cleaned up a second time, and this time for good.



Klaus







*From: *<geoengineering@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Peter Flynn <
pcfl...@ualberta.ca>
*Reply-To: *"pcfl...@ualberta.ca" <pcfl...@ualberta.ca>
*Date: *Friday, September 15, 2017 at 10:15 AM
*To: *"kcalde...@stanford.edu" <kcalde...@stanford.edu>, Geoengineering <
geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
*Cc: *Jason Zhou <jasonsj.z...@gmail.com>
*Subject: *RE: [geo] SOS 2017 Session spotlight 4 - Ocean NETs - CO2
Sequestration Via Ocean-Based Negative Emissions Technologies



This prompts several comments, and apologies for the delay and to those for
whom this is too basic:



1. The ocean can be thought of as two relatively independent bodies of
water, the shallow and deep ocean. There is a fairly sharp boundary between
the two, called the thermocline. Transfer between the two is limited, as
discussed below. Once something in solution is in the deep ocean, on
average its residence time before getting to the shallow ocean is 600 to
1000 years. This is an average; there are regions of the ocean where
circulation between the deep and shallow ocean is very limited, and the
site specific residence time is longer.



The deep ocean is cold and dense. Mixing with the shallow ocean is
energetically difficult because of the energy required to move a dense
element up against gravity across the thermocline into a less dense zone.



2. The interaction between shallow and deep is limited to downwelling and
upwelling currents. There are two major zones of downwelling current, a
zone 

Re: [geo] SOS 2017 Session spotlight 4 - Ocean NETs - CO2 Sequestration Via Ocean-Based Negative Emissions Technologies

[Greg Rau]

Couple of points:1) It is possible to move ocean heat to the deep ocean without 
moving water, nutrients or salt, and to do this in the context of OTEC with 
higher efficiency and less environmental impact than vertically pumping massive 
quantities of water: https://patents.google.com/patent/US8572967B1/en and 
citations therein.

2) It is possible to then couple this OTEC to power negative emissions energy 
production. Here, saline water is electrolyzed to produce the required OTEC 
energy carrier, H2 (or ammonia or hydrocarbons), while water and carbonate or 
silicate minerals are consumed and dissolved mineral hydroxide generated.  The 
hydroxide is then used to absorb excess air/ocean CO2, spontaneously converting 
it to  surface ocean dissolved mineral bicarbonate and carbonate for C storage. 
The addition/storage of this alkalinity also helps neutralize and counter the 
effects of surface ocean acidification.
https://agu.confex.com/agu/fm16/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/121574
http://activetectonics.asu.edu/teaching/GLG494-ICOG/es0701816.pdfhttp://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es800366qhttp://www.pnas.org/content/110/25/10095.full
3) The C storage potential of dissolve mineral (bi)carbonate in the surface 
ocean is vast relative to the potential for CO2 or short-lived biomass. 

4) If the game is to raise deep ocean nutrients to the surface ocean, how about 
Stommel's perpetual salt fountain: 
https://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/JO/pdf/6202/62020133.pdf

 Of course you'd have to deal with the degassing of CO2 brought to the surface, 
but if you go deep enough where the CO2 concentration is high enough and hence 
the transported water undersaturated enough in [CO3--],  CaCO3 (added to the 
plume) will dissolve to consume (some of) that CO2 and again generate/store 
beneficial C alkalinity. Perhaps the density produced by this alkalinity 
addition could then be used to sink warm and now biomass-laden surface water, 
thus producing a perpetual carbonate weathering and marine bio CDR/food/fuel 
production machine. A grateful planet rejoices, Nobel prizes awarded, etc  ;-)
You're welcome,Greg

  From: Klaus Lackner <klaus.lack...@asu.edu>
 To: "pcfl...@ualberta.ca" <pcfl...@ualberta.ca>; "kcalde...@stanford.edu" 
<kcalde...@stanford.edu>; Geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> 
Cc: Jason Zhou <jasonsj.z...@gmail.com>; Anna Hammond <ahamm...@educatedc.com>
 Sent: Friday, September 15, 2017 10:55 AM
 Subject: Re: [geo] SOS 2017 Session spotlight 4 - Ocean NETs - CO2 
Sequestration Via Ocean-Based Negative Emissions Technologies
   
#yiv2319946077 #yiv2319946077 -- _filtered #yiv2319946077 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 
6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv2319946077 {panose-1:2 15 3 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered 
#yiv2319946077 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered 
#yiv2319946077 {panose-1:2 11 6 3 2 2 2 2 2 4;}#yiv2319946077 #yiv2319946077 
p.yiv2319946077MsoNormal, #yiv2319946077 li.yiv2319946077MsoNormal, 
#yiv2319946077 div.yiv2319946077MsoNormal 
{margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv2319946077 h1 
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:24.0pt;font-weight:bold;}#yiv2319946077
 h2 
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:18.0pt;font-weight:bold;}#yiv2319946077
 a:link, #yiv2319946077 span.yiv2319946077MsoHyperlink 
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2319946077 a:visited, #yiv2319946077 
span.yiv2319946077MsoHyperlinkFollowed 
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2319946077 p 
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv2319946077 
span.yiv2319946077Heading1Char {color:#2E74B5;}#yiv2319946077 
span.yiv2319946077Heading2Char {color:#2E74B5;}#yiv2319946077 
p.yiv2319946077m4883480979716823071subject, #yiv2319946077 
li.yiv2319946077m4883480979716823071subject, #yiv2319946077 
div.yiv2319946077m4883480979716823071subject 
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv2319946077 
p.yiv2319946077m4883480979716823071tracking-beacon, #yiv2319946077 
li.yiv2319946077m4883480979716823071tracking-beacon, #yiv2319946077 
div.yiv2319946077m4883480979716823071tracking-beacon 
{margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv2319946077 
span.yiv2319946077m4883480979716823071module-3 {}#yiv2319946077 
span.yiv2319946077m4883480979716823071module-5 {}#yiv2319946077 
span.yiv2319946077m4883480979716823071module-7 {}#yiv2319946077 
span.yiv2319946077m4883480979716823071module-12 {}#yiv2319946077 
span.yiv2319946077m4883480979716823071module-14 {}#yiv2319946077 
span.yiv2319946077m4883480979716823071web-view {}#yiv2319946077 
span.yiv2319946077m4883480979716823071hidefromoutlook {}#yiv2319946077 
span.yiv2319946077m4883480979716823071forward-to {}#yiv2319946077 
span.yiv2319946077m4883480979716823071unsubscribe {}#yiv2319946077 
span.yiv2319946077EmailStyle31 
{font-family:Calibri;color:#1F497D;}#yiv2319946077 
span.yiv2319946077EmailStyle32 
{font-family:Calibri;color:windowtext;font-we

Re: [geo] SOS 2017 Session spotlight 4 - Ocean NETs - CO2 Sequestration Via Ocean-Based Negative Emissions Technologies

[Klaus Lackner]

I agree with all of that. The shallow ocean has neither the storage capacity 
nor the residence time to be a good site for storing CO2.   While ocean 
currents may not make it possible to push CO2 down into the deep ocean, you 
have technical options. For example, you literally could pump liquid CO2 to the 
ocean floor.  However, as Peter points out the residence time is still short 
compared to the time CO2 impacts the environment.  I don’t think it is 
appropriate to solve our climate problem now and leave it for future 
generations to figure out how to manage the CO2 release from upwelling.  If we 
think of solutions to the problem they need to be permanent.  This is not 
entirely an academic perspective.  I would like to point out that a large part 
of the antipathy to nuclear power came from the observation that engineers are 
loath to guarantee storage times of 100,000 years. People asked, what will 
happen to future generations. There seems to be part of the human psyche that 
reacts to such long-term messes.   If you want public buy in, you better be 
able to make the case that the action which put the carbon in storage, actually 
solved the problem.

There is a different problem with overshoot management, here you could convince 
people that we first and foremost have to buy ourselves 50 years, and at the 
end of this period we have to have figured out how to do it right.  For that 
reason, I am supportive of growing trees and do other things that hide carbon 
for a few decades, with the understanding that it will have to be cleaned up a 
second time, and this time for good.

Klaus



From: <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Peter Flynn 
<pcfl...@ualberta.ca>
Reply-To: "pcfl...@ualberta.ca" <pcfl...@ualberta.ca>
Date: Friday, September 15, 2017 at 10:15 AM
To: "kcalde...@stanford.edu" <kcalde...@stanford.edu>, Geoengineering 
<geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Jason Zhou <jasonsj.z...@gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [geo] SOS 2017 Session spotlight 4 - Ocean NETs - CO2 
Sequestration Via Ocean-Based Negative Emissions Technologies

This prompts several comments, and apologies for the delay and to those for 
whom this is too basic:

1. The ocean can be thought of as two relatively independent bodies of water, 
the shallow and deep ocean. There is a fairly sharp boundary between the two, 
called the thermocline. Transfer between the two is limited, as discussed 
below. Once something in solution is in the deep ocean, on average its 
residence time before getting to the shallow ocean is 600 to 1000 years. This 
is an average; there are regions of the ocean where circulation between the 
deep and shallow ocean is very limited, and the site specific residence time is 
longer.

The deep ocean is cold and dense. Mixing with the shallow ocean is 
energetically difficult because of the energy required to move a dense element 
up against gravity across the thermocline into a less dense zone.

2. The interaction between shallow and deep is limited to downwelling and 
upwelling currents. There are two major zones of downwelling current, a zone in 
the north Atlantic called the GIN (named for its proximity to Greenland, 
Iceland, and Norway) and a zone in the Antarctic by the Weddell Sea. The GIN 
downwelling current is called the North Atlantic Deep Water (NADW), and is the 
countervailing flow to the Gulf Stream. Downwelling is driven by a combination 
of temperature and high salinity (the high salinity is in part driven by 
evaporation in the Mediterranean Sea, a current from which joins the Gulf 
Stream). NADW and the companion Gulf Stream were interrupted for about 1200 
years when Lake Agassiz, a glacial fresh water lake in North America, flowed 
into the Atlantic after an ice dam melted. The result was a 1200 year European 
cold period known as the Younger Dryas.

Europe has centers of high population at latitudes higher than any other region 
on the globe; the Gulf Stream is credited for enabling this. One concern cited 
about global warming is that melting of Greenland ice could interrupt the NADW 
/ Gulf Stream again: the irony is that an early product of global warming could 
be a European “ice age”.

3. Songjian Zhou and I looked at whether one could move CO2 from the atmosphere 
into the deep ocean by increasing the concentration of CO2 in NADW. Our answer 
was no: the surface water descending into the NADW was saturated in CO2. But 
the deep ocean is not saturated in CO2, because of its higher pressure.

4. Hence discussion of moving deep ocean water into the shallow ocean baffles 
me. Yes: it contains nutrients. But it also contains CO2, which would flash as 
the pressure dropped and temperature increased. It strikes me that we should 
think of the deep ocean as the sink for CO2, not a source of a “fix”. Any plan 
to use the nutrients in the deep ocean to grow marine biomass to be sunk into 
the deep ocean (or utilized as bio

RE: [geo] SOS 2017 Session spotlight 4 - Ocean NETs - CO2 Sequestration Via Ocean-Based Negative Emissions Technologies

[Andrew Lockley]

Thanks Peter. However, you don't address whether pumping water into sealed
tubes or greenhouses would be viable.

Deep water isn't that deep - water for my toilet is pumped much further.

As long as the water lifted was kept away from the atmosphere and surface
ocean, it should be effective at fertilization of algae without releasing
CO2

A

On 15 Sep 2017 18:15, "Peter Flynn" <pcfl...@ualberta.ca> wrote:

> This prompts several comments, and apologies for the delay and to those
> for whom this is too basic:
>
>
>
> 1. The ocean can be thought of as two relatively independent bodies of
> water, the shallow and deep ocean. There is a fairly sharp boundary between
> the two, called the thermocline. Transfer between the two is limited, as
> discussed below. Once something in solution is in the deep ocean, on
> average its residence time before getting to the shallow ocean is 600 to
> 1000 years. This is an average; there are regions of the ocean where
> circulation between the deep and shallow ocean is very limited, and the
> site specific residence time is longer.
>
>
>
> The deep ocean is cold and dense. Mixing with the shallow ocean is
> energetically difficult because of the energy required to move a dense
> element up against gravity across the thermocline into a less dense zone.
>
>
>
> 2. The interaction between shallow and deep is limited to downwelling and
> upwelling currents. There are two major zones of downwelling current, a
> zone in the north Atlantic called the GIN (named for its proximity to
> Greenland, Iceland, and Norway) and a zone in the Antarctic by the Weddell
> Sea. The GIN downwelling current is called the North Atlantic Deep Water
> (NADW), and is the countervailing flow to the Gulf Stream. Downwelling is
> driven by a combination of temperature and high salinity (the high salinity
> is in part driven by evaporation in the Mediterranean Sea, a current from
> which joins the Gulf Stream). NADW and the companion Gulf Stream were
> interrupted for about 1200 years when Lake Agassiz, a glacial fresh water
> lake in North America, flowed into the Atlantic after an ice dam melted.
> The result was a 1200 year European cold period known as the Younger Dryas.
>
>
>
> Europe has centers of high population at latitudes higher than any other
> region on the globe; the Gulf Stream is credited for enabling this. One
> concern cited about global warming is that melting of Greenland ice could
> interrupt the NADW / Gulf Stream again: the irony is that an early product
> of global warming could be a European “ice age”.
>
>
>
> 3. Songjian Zhou and I looked at whether one could move CO2 from the
> atmosphere into the deep ocean by increasing the concentration of CO2 in
> NADW. Our answer was no: the surface water descending into the NADW was
> saturated in CO2. But the deep ocean is not saturated in CO2, because of
> its higher pressure.
>
>
>
> 4. Hence discussion of moving deep ocean water into the shallow ocean
> baffles me. Yes: it contains nutrients. But it also contains CO2, which
> would flash as the pressure dropped and temperature increased. It strikes
> me that we should think of the deep ocean as the sink for CO2, not a source
> of a “fix”. Any plan to use the nutrients in the deep ocean to grow marine
> biomass to be sunk into the deep ocean (or utilized as biofuel) would have
> to be carefully tested against the CO2 release.
>
>
>
> 5. Glen Tichkowsky and I looked at a scheme in which ocean side pools of
> sea water would be used to grow algae. Evaporation would increase the
> salinity  of the pond to a point where the water could be moved as a batch
> into the deep ocean without pumping. The rate limiting step, by an order of
> magnitude, was the rate of transfer of CO2 from atmosphere to ocean; it was
> sufficiently slow to make the cost of carbon sequestration by this scheme
> prohibitive. I understood after this work why commercial algae growing
> operations often include agitation (to enhance mass transfer) or CO2
> injection. Transferring CO2 into solution is well served by a higher
> concentration, e.g. flue gas.
>
>
>
> I hope this is helpful.
>
>
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.
>
> Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers
>
> Department of Mechanical Engineering
>
> University of Alberta
>
> peter.fl...@ualberta.ca
>
> cell: 928 451 4455 <(928)%20451-4455>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* kcalde...@gmail.com [mailto:kcalde...@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Ken
> Caldeira
> *Sent:* Monday, September 11, 2017 7:03 AM
> *To:* Geoengineering <Geoengineering@googlegroups.

RE: [geo] SOS 2017 Session spotlight 4 - Ocean NETs - CO2 Sequestration Via Ocean-Based Negative Emissions Technologies

[Peter Flynn]

This prompts several comments, and apologies for the delay and to those for
whom this is too basic:



1. The ocean can be thought of as two relatively independent bodies of
water, the shallow and deep ocean. There is a fairly sharp boundary between
the two, called the thermocline. Transfer between the two is limited, as
discussed below. Once something in solution is in the deep ocean, on
average its residence time before getting to the shallow ocean is 600 to
1000 years. This is an average; there are regions of the ocean where
circulation between the deep and shallow ocean is very limited, and the
site specific residence time is longer.



The deep ocean is cold and dense. Mixing with the shallow ocean is
energetically difficult because of the energy required to move a dense
element up against gravity across the thermocline into a less dense zone.



2. The interaction between shallow and deep is limited to downwelling and
upwelling currents. There are two major zones of downwelling current, a
zone in the north Atlantic called the GIN (named for its proximity to
Greenland, Iceland, and Norway) and a zone in the Antarctic by the Weddell
Sea. The GIN downwelling current is called the North Atlantic Deep Water
(NADW), and is the countervailing flow to the Gulf Stream. Downwelling is
driven by a combination of temperature and high salinity (the high salinity
is in part driven by evaporation in the Mediterranean Sea, a current from
which joins the Gulf Stream). NADW and the companion Gulf Stream were
interrupted for about 1200 years when Lake Agassiz, a glacial fresh water
lake in North America, flowed into the Atlantic after an ice dam melted.
The result was a 1200 year European cold period known as the Younger Dryas.



Europe has centers of high population at latitudes higher than any other
region on the globe; the Gulf Stream is credited for enabling this. One
concern cited about global warming is that melting of Greenland ice could
interrupt the NADW / Gulf Stream again: the irony is that an early product
of global warming could be a European “ice age”.



3. Songjian Zhou and I looked at whether one could move CO2 from the
atmosphere into the deep ocean by increasing the concentration of CO2 in
NADW. Our answer was no: the surface water descending into the NADW was
saturated in CO2. But the deep ocean is not saturated in CO2, because of
its higher pressure.



4. Hence discussion of moving deep ocean water into the shallow ocean
baffles me. Yes: it contains nutrients. But it also contains CO2, which
would flash as the pressure dropped and temperature increased. It strikes
me that we should think of the deep ocean as the sink for CO2, not a source
of a “fix”. Any plan to use the nutrients in the deep ocean to grow marine
biomass to be sunk into the deep ocean (or utilized as biofuel) would have
to be carefully tested against the CO2 release.



5. Glen Tichkowsky and I looked at a scheme in which ocean side pools of
sea water would be used to grow algae. Evaporation would increase the
salinity  of the pond to a point where the water could be moved as a batch
into the deep ocean without pumping. The rate limiting step, by an order of
magnitude, was the rate of transfer of CO2 from atmosphere to ocean; it was
sufficiently slow to make the cost of carbon sequestration by this scheme
prohibitive. I understood after this work why commercial algae growing
operations often include agitation (to enhance mass transfer) or CO2
injection. Transferring CO2 into solution is well served by a higher
concentration, e.g. flue gas.



I hope this is helpful.



Peter



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca

cell: 928 451 4455















*From:* kcalde...@gmail.com [mailto:kcalde...@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of *Ken
Caldeira
*Sent:* Monday, September 11, 2017 7:03 AM
*To:* Geoengineering <Geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
*Subject:* [geo] SOS 2017 Session spotlight 4 - Ocean NETs - CO2
Sequestration Via Ocean-Based Negative Emissions Technologies



fyi



[image:
http://sable.madmimi.com/view?id=37127.2887543.1.7549b994549320031d05f495dbf42a2e]

Sustainable Ocean Summit 2017 SESSION SPOTLIGHT Ocean NETs: CO2
Sequestration Via Ocean-Based Negative Emissions Technologies (NETs) The
Internatio



[image: SOS2017 bannerRegistrationOpen 600x150px]
<http://sable.madmimi.com/c/37127?id=2887543.2303.1.c94303a2dc2c5c07d90790b5f2ba98d4>


Sustainable Ocean Summit 2017 SESSION SPOTLIGHT
<http://sable.madmimi.com/c/37127?id=2887543.2304.1.a0bb2736e6402dc798ad4baa8e92c3d4>



[image: ***]


Ocean NETs: CO2 Sequestration Via Ocean-Based Negative Emissions
Technologies (NETs)



[image: Screen Shot 2017-09-08 at 21.10.24]
<http://sable.madmimi.com/c/37127?id=2887543.2305.1.93a67d8d56ade51b064a6de73b758487>



The International Climate Agreement (Paris 2015) requires negati

[geo] SOS 2017 Session spotlight 4 - Ocean NETs - CO2 Sequestration Via Ocean-Based Negative Emissions Technologies

[Ken Caldeira]

fyi



Sustainable Ocean Summit 2017 SESSION SPOTLIGHT Ocean NETs: CO2
Sequestration Via Ocean-Based Negative Emissions Technologies (NETs) The
Internatio

[image: SOS2017 bannerRegistrationOpen 600x150px]



Sustainable Ocean Summit 2017 SESSION SPOTLIGHT

[image: ***]
Ocean NETs: CO2 Sequestration Via Ocean-Based Negative Emissions
Technologies (NETs)
[image: Screen Shot 2017-09-08 at 21.10.24]


The International Climate Agreement (Paris 2015) requires negative emission
technologies (NETs) to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in order
to meet planetary safe limits. NETs need to transfer carbon from the
atmosphere to a safe and environmentally sound storage. Developing and
implementing NETs are critical to all industries with a carbon footprint
who already or will in the near future have a price on their carbon output.

Although there is much attention to potential land based NETs, there is
growing evidence that the ocean is the dominant player in global carbon
cycling and storage and in the planet’s temperature regulation. This means
that ocean-based NETs must be given serious consideration for their
potential to make a significant contribution to climate mitigation.

Chemical and biological Ocean NETs are being explored, including: ocean
alkalinity shifts (introducing bicarbonates), direct CO2 injection (seabed
and water column), growing seaweed for deep ocean deposition, expansion of
coastal ecosystems that store carbon, adjusting ocean primary productivity
(e.g. artificial upwelling, addition of macronutrients nitrogen and/or
phosphorus, addition of trace elements such as iron and silicon, enhanced
light penetration, promoting the growth of nitrogen fixing cyanobacteria).

Researchers, private enterprises and public bodies exploring Ocean NETs
coordination could benefit from a structure and process to enhance
coordination and exchange. The World Ocean Council (WOC) is working to
address this by developing a global Ocean NET platform to bring together
science, policy, business and other interests.

*The SOS 2017 session on “Ocean NETs: CO2 Sequestration Via Ocean-Based
Negative Emissions Technologies (NETs)”* will address:
• What are the requirements of the International Climate Agreement (Paris
2015) for negative emission technologies (NET’s) to remove atmospheric CO2
to meet planetary safe limits for global temperatures?
• What are the potential ocean-based NETs, what science is available on
them and what are the risks and benefits of Ocean NETs?
• What is needed to advance careful, science-based consideration of Ocean
NETs as a potentially viable, important means to address increasing
atmospheric CO2?

The SOS 2017 session will focus on tangible goals that can assist in
advancing the evaluation of Ocean NETs, e.g. determining the potential
impact and status of Ocean NETs; identifying research gaps and unknowns;
reviewing the cost of implementation of Ocean NETs; reviewing the legal
framework for Ocean NETs; exploring the conceptual design of a future
multipurpose Ocean NET station for capturing CO2, producing food,
generating power, and interacting with other ocean users. With a cluster of
innovative ocean technologies there is significantly more potential to
build commercially viable ocean enterprises that help ensure that
innovative NET solutions combine the very best ocean technologies and
skills in multi-functional marine technology sites housing and enabling
Ocean NETs.

To better understand the opportunities and challenges of Ocean NETs,
experts and representatives from the ocean business community and other
stakeholders are invited to get engaged as speakers or participants in the
SOS 2017 session on this critical issue by contacting the WOC at
i...@oceancouncil.org <%20i...@oceancouncil.org>.
[image: ***]
*Practical Information:*
[image: UpdatedProgram]

[image: Date]

[image: Location]

[image: sos]


Stay informed of our latest news!
[image: twitter-01]

[image: linkedin-01]


Contact email: sum...@oceancouncil.org


©2017 World Ocean Council | 3035 Hibiscus Drive, Suite 1, Honolulu, Hawaii
96815 USA

Web Version