Of course, only one or a few whales per herd would have to be equipped.
Alternatively, one or a few sphepherd ("whalherd"?) iron dispensing ships
leading large whale herds could be used. They could be unmanned for cost
reduction, or on the contrary exploited for whale watching tourism in order to
offset the costs.
I may be wrong but it seems to me that the whale synergy could suppress most of
the objections to iron fertilization listed in the wikipedia article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization
(a model of contradictory objectivity BTW, with pro and anti arguments in
orderly succession)
Critics/comments/ideas? Come on Vos we've got a planet to save, let's give a
chance to all proposals!
Michel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michel Jullian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 10:02 AM
Subject: [Vo]: Iron dispensing whales scheme
> Mmm, maybe we shouldn't throw out the whales with the bath water ;-)
>
> It seems to me the iron dispensing whales scheme may have its own merits,
> whether or not the blubber is harvested, and whether or not it can be used to
> control remotely the whales itinerary.
>
> I believe it constitutes, in itself, an improvement over previously
> considered iron fertilization schemes for the following reasons:
>
> 1/ Lower cost (costs less than ships or planes)
>
> 2/ Probably more net CO2 removed per unit mass of iron, the CO2 being
> immediately converted to less volatile forms of carbon than the algae
> themselves: total whale biomass increase and fesces dropping to the ocean
> bottom
>
> 3/ The planet keeps the color we are used to, the blooms being immediately
> harvested
>
> 4/ It's whale-friendly
>
> Does this make sense?
>
> --
> Michel
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michel Jullian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <vortex-l@eskimo.com>
> Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 2:53 PM
> Subject: [Vo]: RC'd CO2 harvesting whale herds (was: The $25 Million Branson
> Climate Prize)
>
>
>> Steven Krivit wrote:
>>> Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain Mr. Branson.
>>>
>>> http://www.newenergytimes.com/SR/CashIn/CashonClimateChange.html
>>
>> So it seems iron fertilization does enhance algae growth after all, by
>> creating more or less instantaneous blooms, and the (old) idea is not
>> George's but Martin's like Jones said. I had no idea there was a lack of
>> iron in the oceans, this probably means this element is the limiting factor
>> for ocean surface algae photosynthesis. What is not clear at all if if this
>> scheme is a net atmospheric carbon absorber in the long term, let's assume
>> it isn't (algae re-emit GHGs when they die, so do the fish that eat them),
>> so we still need to harvest and sequester.
>>
>> Ok let's pursue the whale herd idea of my earlier post for harvesting and
>> sequestering, and let's throw in the iron fertilization factor since it
>> works:
>>
>> 1/ Let's equip the whales with iron dispensers spurting iron solution around
>> when there is sunlight for photosynthesis to occur. This way the algae will
>> grow where and when they can be harvested :) And the whale herd will grow
>> too.
>>
>> 2/ Instead of going whale hunting like in the good old days, couldn't we
>> take advantage of the beasties' gluttony to remote control them to their
>> oceanic pastures and back? All that would be needed would be an embarked
>> GPS, a radio for two way communication with the "whale boys" in their
>> control rooms on land, and ways to direct the iron solution spurts to where
>> we want the whales to follow the blooms :)
>>
>> How does this "whale oil" scheme sound now ?
>>
>> Michel
>>
>
