Also Peter, The 'Perpetual Salt Fountain' is a great addition to any large scale algae operation. http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/JO/pdf/6003/60030563.pdf *"Deep seawater in the ocean contains a great deal of nutrients. Stommel et al. have proposed the notion of a “perpetual salt fountain” (Stommel et al., 1956). They noted the possibility of a permanent upwelling of deep seawater with no additional external energy source. If we can cause deep seawater to upwell extensively, we can achieve an ocean farm. We have succeeded in measuring the upwelling velocity by an experiment in the Mariana Trench area using a special measurement system. A 0.3 m diameter, 280 m long soft pipe made of PVC sheet was used in the experiment. The measured data, a verification experiment, and numerical simulation results, gave an estimate of upwelling velocity of 212 m/day."* I've realized that the basic configuration of the tube can be converted into a large through put 'trash' pump, with minor mods, and powered by wave energy conversion. Deployed on a large scale, this system would significantly increase the microbial loop rate of production and thus produce a carbon sink multiplier for any macro algae farm system (not to mention an increase in marine life at all levels). Deep water C4 plant farms (gyres are lest problematic for production placement) can be scaled up to 'geoengineering' relevance with possible self funding commercial activities. Littoral deployments are possible but the artificial up welling would need a corresponding artifical down welling to prevent dead zones down current from the up welling. Here is a link to a few thoughts Mark and I exchanged some time ago. https://groups.google.com/d/topic/geoengineering/wyLXSagkvsw/discussion *"Mark Capron has proposed Ocean Afforestation within this forum going back to at least 09. And, much of that work is centered around diatom enhancement for general CCS and possible biomass harvesting for methane fuel production and more. C4 halophytes (1) could be an important enhancement to that initial ocean afforestation strategy."* I'm glad to see this issue come back up in this group. IMHO, Ocean Afforestation is our best long term hope to stabilize the climate and adjust the ocean pH. Initial math indicated that up to 6% of the earth needed to be put into production to off set current CO2 emissions. Wide spread use of the Perpetual Salt Fountain System may reduce the needed area substantially . I hope this helped. Michael
On Thursday, January 10, 2013 8:29:54 PM UTC-8, MarkCapron wrote: > Peter, > > The calculations in "Negative carbon via Ocean Afforestation" are based on > actual macroalgae growth rates with whatever CO2 transfer and nutrients are > naturally available. Either may be limiting. > > Your experience would appear to confirm our seaweed forests can be havens > of high pH for critters in need of pre-industrial pH for shell formation. > > Mark E. Capron, PE > Oxnard, California > www.PODenergy.org > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [geo] Ocean based algal growth: rate of CO2 transfer > From: Peter Flynn <peter...@ualberta.ca <javascript:>> > Date: Wed, January 09, 2013 6:36 pm > To: geoengi...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> > > I am joining this discussion late, so I hope I am not covering ground > already discussed. > > Some years back a graduate student and I looked at a conceptual scheme to > grow algae and sink them into the deep ocean, using increased salinity from > evaporation as the “pump”. We found that the rate limiting step was not > sunlight or evaporation, but rather the transport of carbon dioxide from > the atmosphere into the ocean. This was, as I recall, 10 times slower than > the potential rate of growth of the algae. > > We came to understand why agitation and CO2 addition are included in some > commercial algal farms. > > Peter Flynn > > Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D. > Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers > Department of Mechanical Engineering > University of Alberta > peter...@ualberta.ca <javascript:> > cell: 928 451 4455 > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> > . > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/jYZavP37IswJ. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
