(Victor's?) experiments in the Southern Ocean testing Ocean Iron Fertilization found silicic acid to be a limiting factor. Silica shells are large and thus I expect silicic acid is required in quantities too large to add artificially.
Blooms are eaten or sink quite quickly. There's no need to remove them. It's conceivable that methane could be formed from their decomposition, but this is unlikely to reach the atmosphere. Modelling would assist in testing this assumption. The formation of large -scale clathrate deposits in warming waters would be a concern. A On Jan 17, 2013 10:07 AM, "John Nissen" <johnnissen2...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Michael et al, > > I've been told that a diatom bloom would be harmless as well as drawing > down CO2 and increasing albedo - so how would one trigger a massive bloom? > Could one use Salter's wave-powered pumps? Doesn't sea water now contain a > high level of CO2, which is why we are concerned about ocean acidification? > I think far more likely that the growth of diatoms will be limited by > silicon in the sea water, in which case this would have to be added, > preferably in a form to reduce acidification. > > If there were unwanted side-effects from a diatom bloom, would there be > any safe way to remove the diatoms? > > Cheers, John > -- > > On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Chris <chris.viv...@cefas.co.uk> wrote: > >> Michael, >> >> >> While deep seawater in the ocean does indeed contain a great deal of >> nutrients, it also contains high levels of dissolved inorganic carbon >> derived from the degradation of sinking organic matter generated in surface >> waters. Thus, bringing deep seawater to the surface will lead to outgassing >> of CO2 to the atmosphere that would greatly reduce if not eliminate the >> climate benefits of the schemes as indicated in the papers below: >> >> Dutreuil, S., Bopp, L. and Tagliabue, A. (2009) Impact of enhanced >> vertical mixing on marine biogeochemistry: Lessons for geo-engineering and >> natural variability. Biogeosciences Vol. 6, 901-912. >> >> *http://www.biogeosciences.net/6/901/2009/bg-6-901-2009.pdf*<http://www.biogeosciences.net/6/901/2009/bg-6-901-2009.pdf> >> >> Oschlies, A., Pahlow, M., Yool, A. and Matear, R. J. (2010) *Climate >> engineering by artificial ocean upwelling - channelling the sorcerer's >> apprentice* Geophysical Research Letters, 37, L04701. >> >> *http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL041961/abstract*<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL041961/abstract> >> >> Yool, A., Shepherd, J. G., Bryden, H. L. and Oschlies, A. (2009), Low >> efficiency of nutrient translocation for enhancing oceanic uptake of carbon >> dioxide, Journal of Geophysical research - Oceans 114, C08009, >> >> *http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JC004792/abstract*<http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JC004792/abstract> >> >> Note also that bringing up deep seawater for other purposes such as Ocean >> Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) and Deep Water Source Cooling/Seawater Air >> Conditioning has the same problem >> >> Chris. >> >> On Tuesday, 15 January 2013 22:21:14 UTC, Michael Hayes wrote: >> >>> 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<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<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> >>>> Date: Wed, January 09, 2013 6:36 pm >>>> To: geoengi...@googlegroups.com >>>> >>>> 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 >>>> 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. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>> geoengineerin...@googlegroups.**com. >>>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** >>>> group/geoengineering?hl=en<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/-/HQZJQCJdd7gJ. >> >> 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. >> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > 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. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. 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.
