Andrew et al., Until actual field experience is developed, bio-manipulation, relative to ebullition fields, does need to be limited to bioreactors and or capture/harvest systems. Dr. Salter has offered one detailed mechanical approach to capturing methane<https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=gmail&attid=0.1&thid=14057f91d3370df7&mt=application/msword&url=https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui%3D2%26ik%3D05e7756a3b%26view%3Datt%26th%3D14057f91d3370df7%26attid%3D0.1%26disp%3Dsafe%26zw&sig=AHIEtbRkbn8klGb4j8E5kU2XVh3lw-IVzA>and there may be more ideas available in the early concept stage.
This overall subject was debated here about two years ago and, during that time, I've looked into the many different possible ebullition management concepts. This work has suggested to me that the following criteria may be useful. Any management system should have: * 1: **An ability to actively harvest shallow hydrate deposits before they dissolve,* is important as this would help manage active ebullition fields and also help reduce the threat posed by those fields that are close to breaching their GHSZ. Only those close to, or beyond, their GHSZ need to be addressed at this early stage. That means going no further down into the floor than 3-4m. * * * 2: **An ability to be operational year round, *is QED. * 3: **An ability to convert the gas on site (piping is an option if close to shore), *is important as the winter time operation will make commercializing the gas, far off shore and year round, problematic. Methane can be easily used on site to produce ice/cold water with the resulting CO2 used in bioreactors and the BC can be filtered out. Also, the use of the methane to cultivate bio feedstock via bioreactors for multiple end products is somewhat better than dumping the biomass on the floor. * 4: **An ability to easily move about most floor features, actively seek out shallow deposits, be of simple design and capable of remote control, *covers the key engineering design issues which are important in meeting 1,2 &3. In short, the most control over hydrates achievable is to actively harvest and use the gas. *Capping off an ebullition field, at any level, is no more than trying to put the the egg back together once it's an omelette.* Dr. Salter's concept is well suited for the idealized flat floor, can be modified to go after shallow hydrates and would cover a good deal of space. However, a smaller and more agile harvesting tool, which could act as outriggers to his sheet or stand alone gear, may be worth developing. I believe speed and ease of use are priorities. Once a robust means to harvest the hydrates is developed, the exact use of the gas can be worked out and, as the ESAS is shallow, I see no problems with placing large collections of bioreactors and storage barges on the floor. I would like to see a $5M X Prize sponsored for this area of concern. I believe even a minor degree of the potential commercialization rights of this type of project would provide a healthy return for the sponsor(s). *The Hydrate Challenge* should be given priority within the GE field and the general GW issue. Beat, Michael On Sunday, August 25, 2013 5:12:39 AM UTC-7, andrewjlockley wrote: > > There's no need for any biological engineering. Methane degrades rapidly, > and the bacteria able to do this are AFAIK widespread. The main issue is > that methane vents to atmosphere too fast. > > Breaking up large, fast moving bubbles, and using foams to stop methane > escaping to the atmosphere, would seem to be a better approach than trying > to improve on biology. The biology just doesn't seem to be where the > problem lies. > > A > On Aug 25, 2013 1:21 AM, "Michael Hayes" <vogle...@gmail.com<javascript:>> > wrote: > >> The use of BW in conjunction with microbes may to be worth looking at; as >> the two can be deployed without conflict with each other and they both may >> address dissolved CH4. The introduction of copepods to consume the microbes >> may help keep things in balance as well as provide the local biota with a >> food supply useful to a wider range of life. Also, mat forming algae can be >> factored into this line of thought. >> >> On Saturday, August 24, 2013 10:51:19 AM UTC-7, Russell Seitz wrote: >>> >>> >>> Contrary to what Mark writes , microbubbles deployed at the volume >>> concentrations required to cool water cannot "be thought of as a foam" >>> because: >>> >>> >>> 1. They do not rise to reach the surface, because their vertical >>> stagnation velocity is smaller than convective water motion - they remaine >>> dispersed in the mixed layer much as cloud of comparably small water >>> dropletss are suspended in the sky. >>> >>> >>> 2. In efficient dispersion the sum of the microbubbles' Mie scattering >>> cross sections only adds up to a small multiple of the surface area being >>> cooled-- foams are floating three dimensional rafts, not two dimensional >>> bubble lattices. >>> >>> rereading the 'bright water' paper should clarify things further- >>> microbubbles ned to be developed on the scale of cooling ponds and other >>> reservoirs before they can be seriously evaluated for Arctic ice >>> conservation. >>> >>> >>> The paper's primary aim is local and regional water conservation, not >>> global geoengineering.. >>> >>> -- >> 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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> >> . >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> > -- 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 http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
