Thanks Nick, your suggestions and help regarding such an assessment would be welcome.
Note this project differs from the Planktos scheme in that the crop is not left to rot and drop to the ocean bottom, and in that iron or any artificial fertilization may not be needed: considering the extensive scale of the project "bio" sargassum growing is clearly an option. As mentioned earlier there might be issues with eels and sea turtles regarding their reproduction and migration under cover of the floating sargassum mats. OTOH there would be more such shelter if anything, so it isn't clear if it would be a problem. Regarding the choice of the biofuel, it occurred to me that doing the conversion on land as in the latest scheme discussed would allow processes requiring longer processing times and larger plant areas, such as methane generation: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=sargassum+methane All interested in taking an active part in pushing this Gyre grown and conveyed seaweed concept further, please contact me privately: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Michel ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nick Palmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 6:47 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Eye of the Gyre > Michel wrote: > > <<Back on topic, talking about unedible things, you don't happen to have Sir > Branson's ear by any chance? > > Think he might be interested in this Bermuda based N.A. Gyre cultivation > nonsense?>> > > Richard Branson's ear? If only... > > As far as the Sargasso seaweed cultivation goes isn't it just a larger, more > elaborate version of the Planktos idea? It would be great if a full and > proper environmental risk/benefit assessment was carried out in advance and > gave it a clean bill of health. Sometimes schemes like this, designed to be > a solution to one problem, can have deleterious effects that outweigh the > benefits. In short, they can cause more problems than they solve. >
