Hi thanks Charles, I agree and think mariculture of algae looks interesting. While this isnt really geo-eng, you can see ano interview i did here on the topic: I wouldnt consider whales as any part of geo-engineering, Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone on O2
-----Original Message----- From: "Charles H. Greene" <c...@cornell.edu> Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 01:00:52 To: RAU greg<gh...@sbcglobal.net>; geoengineering<geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; em...@lewis-brown.net<em...@lewis-brown.net> Subject: Re: Whales and harvesting oil Re: [geo] Earthworms: Nature's unlikely CDRers Baleen whales are two or more trophic levels removed from marine algae, so harvesting all of the whales in the world at a maximum sustainable yield would not put a dent in the global liquid fuel demand. Furthermore, I suspect that a LCA would demonstrate that more energy would be used in harvesting them, even if ranched, then would be produced. Marine algae are the solution, but paradoxically, they must be grown on land under tightly controlled, industrial conditions to make it economically and energetically feasible. It is realistic to expect that marine algae can be grown under such conditions to produce the equivalent of about one barrel of oil per hectare per day. To meet the total US liquid fuel demand, that would mean growing algae in an area about the size of the state of Georgia (2% of US land area). Since US demand is ~20% of global demand, the global demand could be met by growing algae in an area approximately five times the size of Georgia. It's not likely to happen in the US, but could be done in other parts of the world with access to the ocean and sufficient sunshine. Nutrients are an issue, too; however, they can be recycled and used much more efficiently than any terrestrial sources of plant biomass. Since these are marine algae, they don't need to compete with food crops for good agricultural land and freshwater. In other words, the world's deserts adjacent to the ocean would work just fine. Algae need CO2 to produce biomass, and it cannot be acquired from the atmosphere to optimize growth when atmospheric concentrations are so dilute (400 ppm). If linked to direct air capture of CO2, the liquid fuels produced can potentially be carbon neutral (free of new fossil carbon). If you create long-lived algal biopetroleum products, then the process can be carbon negative. I predict that the long-term economic viability of this approach to carbon dioxide removal will be worked out during the next five years. Then it will take clever financing to handle the huge capital expenditures (Cap Ex) necessary to take this concept to scale. Then the question becomes who is willing to spend the trillions of dollars in Cap Ex to produce liquid fuels that meet the global demand but without ever running out or producing any new fossil carbon emissions? Greene, C. Monger, B. Huntley, M. 2010. Geoengineering: the inescapable truth of getting to 350. Solutions 1(5): 57-66. On Oct 20, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Greg Rau wrote: Dear Emily, Just to clarify: 1) Whales themselves are net sources of CO2 to the atmosphere - they consume and respire many times their weight in marine carbon that they then ventilate to air. HOWEVER, it has been suggested that their nutrient-rich poop (which floats) could fuel further marine photosynthesis and hence effect net air CO2 drawdown relative to what would happen without whales. I'm a little skeptical, but let's do more research to find out. 2) Baleen whales solve several major problems facing the algae biofuels industry - they efficiently harvest algae (OK invertebrates that eat algae) and convert this on the fly to massive stores of hydrocarbons in a manner that Sapphire Energy, the DOD, etc can only dream about. Whales are the Chevrons and ExxonMobils of the ocean, and were exploited as such into the last century. 3) Obviously, we are not going back to these bad old days, but it is food for thought as to how we might be able to build on this very efficient model of marine biofuel production to help solve our current energy and CO2 problem. Ranching whales might seem shocking, but then look what we do to another mammals. I suggest free-range ranching and humane liposuction to harvest the oil to avoid killing the animals, but I'm just thinking out loud here. Who knows, maybe some engineer will invent a mechanical whale and solve the whole animal exploitation dilemma (still, at the expense of those poor, defenseless, and beautiful algae). In any case, I think our days of hands-off management of a once pristine ocean needs to be replaced by a more hands-on, pro-active style, the details of which are in need some serious debate and research: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n10/full/nclimate1555.html I'm just saying that we cannot ignore 70% of the planet, either as a victim of our activities, or a possible solver of our current predicament. Mother Nature won't. Greg ________________________________ From: "em...@lewis-brown.net<mailto:em...@lewis-brown.net>" <em...@lewis-brown.net<mailto:em...@lewis-brown.net>> To: Emily Lewis-Brown <em...@lewis-brown.net<mailto:em...@lewis-brown.net>>; gh...@sbcglobal.net<mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net>; Michael Hayes <voglerl...@gmail.com<mailto:voglerl...@gmail.com>>; "geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> Sent: Saturday, October 19, 2013 4:58 AM Subject: Whales and harvesting oil Re: [geo] Earthworms: Nature's unlikely CDRers Ps i sorry, i should have added, any wording around 'harvesting' whales or using the oil, would i expect be met with ngo outcry. The whales are a good source of carbon stotage when they are live and swimming around the ocean. Their long migration habits are a critical component of their feeding and carbon cycling eco-functions also. Thanks Emily Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone on O2 ________________________________ From: em...@lewis-brown.net<mailto:em...@lewis-brown.net> Sender: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2013 11:52:08 +0000 To: <gh...@sbcglobal.net<mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net>>; Michael Hayes<voglerl...@gmail.com<mailto:voglerl...@gmail.com>>; geoengineering@googlegroups.com<geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> ReplyTo: em...@lewis-brown.net<mailto:em...@lewis-brown.net> Subject: Re: [geo] Earthworms: Nature's unlikely CDRers Hi, Whales are very slow growing and reproducing animals and would not be a quick store of co2. While the ngo community would welcome support in protecting wild whales and helping populations re-grow, i anticipate huge resistance to the word 'ranching' as it suggests captivity. Please consider wording which supports exisiting whale cionservation methods. Thanks Emily. Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone on O2 ________________________________ From: Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net<mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net>> Sender: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2013 13:05:01 -0700 (PDT) To: Michael Hayes<voglerl...@gmail.com<mailto:voglerl...@gmail.com>>; geoengineering@googlegroups.com<geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> ReplyTo: gh...@sbcglobal.net<mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net> Subject: Re: [geo] Earthworms: Nature's unlikely CDRers OK, thanks Michael. I'll tell my squadron of B 52s hold off aerial bombing of the N hemisphere with earthworms until we get more information. As for whales I'm a big fan of whale ranching, especially if carbon credits are involved - see earlier posts. Greg ________________________________ From: Michael Hayes <voglerl...@gmail.com<mailto:voglerl...@gmail.com>> To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> Cc: gh...@sbcglobal.net<mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net> Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 12:27 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Earthworms: Nature's unlikely CDRers Greg, Ron et al., One issue with earthworms is that they can consume forest floor nutrients useful to the macro flora. Here In the Pacific Northwest and elsewhere, where earthworms are not indigenous yet have become ubiquitous, tree growth rates have been adversely effected by the introduction of worms. Here is a sample of available media literature: Invasive Earthworms <http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/terrestrialanimals/earthworms/index.html> "All of the terrestrial earthworms in Minnesota are non-native, invasive species from Europe and Asia (There is a native aquatic species that woodcock eat). At least fifteen non-native terrestrial species have been introduced so far. Studies conducted by the University of Minnesota and forest managers show that at least seven species are invading our hardwood forests and causing the loss of tree seedlings, wildflowers, and ferns.". This may be another case which illustrates that the balancing act of Nature's matrix of relationships is not well suited for 'system by system' treatment. If one relationship is broken it does seem to cause an unraveling of other seemingly unrelated relationships. Another example of this type of matrix disruption is shown by the over harvesting of Baleen Whales; which has now led to a significant decrease in oceanic CDR via loss of macro algae. Earth system science may be the ultimate chess game. Best, Michael On Friday, October 18, 2013 11:31:26 AM UTC-7, Ron wrote: Greg and list: This is my first day back from the 4-day biochar conference (went well). I have read the abstract and the supplementary material, but not yet the full article (copy would be much appreciated). I am pretty sure the authors are encouraging vermiculture for CDR reasons - but that the authors did not consider biochar in their studies. I am also pretty sure that worms prefer soil with biochar augmentation. So to answer Greg's question, the answer is probably "no" - but I need to read the full article to give a better answer. There is a fair amount of literature on the coupling of worms and biochar, but I found none addressing "better than" and don't think this particular article will help. Both worms and biochar increase carbon above and below ground. That is where the real CDR will be taking place. Ron On Oct 17, 2013, at 2:59 PM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net<x-msg://804/>> wrote: Better than biochar? Greg http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131015/ncomms3576/full/ncomms3576.html Earthworms facilitate carbon sequestration through unequal amplification of carbon stabilization compared with mineralization Yuanhu Shao<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131015/ncomms3576/full/ncomms3576.html#auth-8>& Shenglei Fu<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131015/ncomms3576/full/ncomms3576.html#auth-9>Affiliations<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131015/ncomms3576/full/ncomms3576.html#affil-auth>Contributions<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131015/ncomms3576/full/ncomms3576.html#contrib-auth>Cor responding author<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131015/ncomms3576/full/ncomms3576.html#corres-auth> , Deborah A. Neher<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131015/ncomms3576/full/ncomms3576.html#auth-6>,Jianxiong Li<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131015/ncomms3576/full/ncomms3576.html#auth-7> Roger A. Burke<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131015/ncomms3576/full/ncomms3576.html#auth-4>,Jianping Wu<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131015/ncomms3576/full/ncomms3576.html#auth-5>, Paul F. Hendrix<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131015/ncomms3576/full/ncomms3576.html#auth-2>,Lauren E. Dame<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131015/ncomms3576/full/ncomms3576.html#auth-3>, Weixin Zhang<http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131015/ncomms3576/full/ncomms3576.html#auth-1>, Nature Communications 4, Article number: 2576 doi:10.1038/ncomms3576 Received 28 April 2013 Accepted 09 September 2013 Published 15 October 2013 Article tools Abstract A recent review concluded that earthworm presence increases CO2 emissions by 33% but does not affect soil organic carbon stocks. However, the findings are controversial and raise new questions. Here we hypothesize that neither an increase in CO2 emission nor in stabilized carbon would entirely reflect the earthworms’ contribution to net carbon sequestration. We show how two widespread earthworm invaders affect net carbon sequestration through impacts on the balance of carbon mineralization and carbon stabilization. Earthworms accelerate carbon activation and induce unequal amplification of carbon stabilization compared with carbon mineralization, which generates an earthworm-mediated ‘carbon trap’. We introduce the new concept of sequestration quotient to quantify the unequal processes. The patterns of CO2 emission and net carbon sequestration are predictable by comparing sequestration quotient values between treatments with and without earthworms. This study clarifies an ecological mechanism by which earthworms may regulate the terrestrial carbon sink. -- 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<x-msg://804/>. To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups. com<x-msg://804/>. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/ group/geoengineering<http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering>. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/ groups/opt_out<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<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. 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<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. 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<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. 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<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. 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.
