Michael and list
See few inserts below
On Feb 14, 2014, at 1:14 PM, Michael Hayes <voglerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Oscar, Ron et. al.,
>
> Oscar; Thanks for bringing the paper to the table. Biodiesel does not contain
> sulfur and it would be convenient, on a number of levels, if the shipping
> industry would convert to marine based biodiesel ASAP.
[RWL: Agreed. My guess is that Dr. Smolker would say otherwise - given
the term "bio" is there. Better to have increased acidification?
>
> Ken/Ron, (Ref:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/nncNYX7jS2U/kbQ7cT1cK4sJ);
> Does the term: "through environmental mechanisms other than an intended
> reduction of excess anthropogenic aerosol or greenhouse gas concentrations."
> mean that projects which are primarily CDR and CCS efforts are
> non-geoengineering projects?
[RWL: Ken will hopefully respond, but I think he would say "Yes" (that
he would prefer that definition). I am less certain, as I see the term
"geoengineering" as likely to continue having both SRM and CDR portions - and I
am happy to see both. I fear that if they were separated, there would be less
emphasis on the CDR half of geoengineering. I expect Dr. Smolker would partly
agree with me - that CDR is indubitably part of Geoengineering - and (differing
with me) should not be tolerated.
> How would carbon negative biofuels be classified under Ken's definition?
[RWL: Again deferring to Ken, I think the whole world of "Geoengineering"
is (unfortunately) paying insufficient attention to the carbon-neutral energy
production aspects of some CDR options. Emphasis is only on carbon-negativity
in the geoengineering world. This aspect probably makes biochar doubly
horrible in Dr. Smolker's mind.
> Also, relativistic terms and words, such as "de minimis" or "scope" seem to
> require further clarification. Size/Scope or Minimum/Maximum quantifiers can
> be highly subjective without pre-determined qualifying limits. Clarity on
> these points would be useful.
[RWL: I'll defer on all topics save biochar, which approach seems to me to
qualify as de minimis. I believe Dr. Caldeira has agreed. Obviously, Dr.
Smolker would disagree, but I don't think she has yet explained why - other
than giving us a strong negative opinion.
>
> Dr. Calvin, (Ref:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/fm_mh_lUtlU/qnfRjye1JP0J);
> Your push/pull concept, and the need for a project to meet the "Big, Quick,
> and Surefire Test", can accomidate biochar/carbon negitive biofuel
> production. The processing of the biomass can keep up with any biomass
> production method as long as the cultivation is within bioreactors. Open
> water algae blooms have largely been rejected as being un-acceptable, thus
> the use of photobioreactors are the only option for large scale microalgal
> biomass production.
[RWL: Can you expand on the "un-acceptable" and "only"? Why?
> The potential "out-year effect" (long term CO2 sequestration activity of
> biochar/olivine/organic fertilizer etc) of algal biomass based soil
> amendments multiplies the CDR/CCS effects of straight algal/sequestration
> (push/pull) by at least one factor. In short, the carbon negative biofuel
> regiment maximizes the market/environmental potential of the biomass, can pay
> for itself and needs no further basic research level developments. It can be
> "plug-n-play".
> [RWL: I hope we can convince Dr. Calvin of this difference with
> placing the produced ocean biomass on shore. Re guessing on Dr. Smolker's
> opinion - I have seen nothing from BFW on ocean biomass, but I suspect ocean
> sourcing would make no difference.
Ron
>
>
> Best,
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 12, 2014 1:00:24 PM UTC-8, Oscar Escobar wrote:
> Strong acids formed from shipping emissions can produce seasonal 'hot spots'
> of
> ocean acidification, a recent study finds. These hot spots, in ocean areas
> close to
> busy shipping lanes, could have negative effects on local marine ecology and
> commercially farmed seafood species.
>
> Shipping emissions can lead to high local
> ocean acidification
>
> Oceans have become more acidic since pre-industrial times. The average global
> ocean pH -
> which decreases with increasing acidity - has dropped by 0.1 because the seas
> have
> absorbed 30-40% of manmade CO2. However, it is not only CO2 that can acidify
> oceans.
> Shipping emissions, a significant source of atmospheric pollution, annually
> release around
> 9.5 million metric tons of sulphur and 16.2 million metric tons of nitric
> oxides.
>
> When dissolved in seawater, these pollutants are converted into the strong
> sulphuric and
> nitric acids, adding to ocean acidification. Increasing acidity poses a
> threat to marine
> ecosystems, harming species such as coral and algae, as well as commercial
> aquaculture
> species, such as shellfish.
>
> The researchers used state of the art computer modelling techniques and
> datasets to create
> a high resolution simulation of global shipping emissions' effects on ocean
> acidity. The
> simulation calculated the acidifying impacts of shipping sulphur and nitric
> oxide emissions on
> a month by month basis, over one year. In addition to shipping-related
> influences on acidity,
> the model also included many physical and environmental factors, such as
> ocean surface
> water mixing and atmospheric effects.
>
> The results agreed with previous studies of the average annual ocean
> acidification, but,
> importantly, revealed significant differences between regions and seasons.
> Ocean
> acidification was highest in the northern hemisphere, occurring in 'hot
> spots' close to coastal
> areas and busy shipping lanes during the summer months. These 'hot spots'
> coincide with
> peak activity of some biological processes, such as plankton blooms and fish
> hatching,
> where they may cause greater harm. On a local scale, the acidification - a pH
> drop of
> 0.0015-0.0020 - was equal to CO2's global annual acidifying effects.
>
> The model did not include some coastal ocean areas, such as the Mediterranean
> Sea, as
> there were limitations in the oceanographic atlases used. However,
> acidification is likely to
> be high in these areas given the heavy shipping traffic from ports.
>
> International regulation is in place to reduce shipping atmospheric sulphur
> emissions
> through the International Maritime Organization's Emission Control Areas
> (ECA), which are
> in force in four ocean areas, including the Baltic and North Seas. One
> technology commonly
> used to achieve ECA targets is 'seawater scrubbing', where exhaust pollutants
> are removed
> using seawater.
>
> This study drew on data from 2000 and 2002, prior to the enforcement of ECAs.
> However,
> the researchers note that seawater scrubbing, without additional steps to
> neutralise the
> acids that it produces, causes acidification in regions where biodiversity or
> commercial
> aquaculture may be most negatively affected. These previously overlooked
> sources of ocean
> acidification and policy impacts could be used to inform future discussions
> of controls
> relating to shipping emissions or ocean acidification
>
> The study:
>
> Shipping contributes to ocean acidification
> Ida-Maja Hassellöv et al DOI: 10.1002/grl.50521
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50521/full
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50521/abstract
>
> Abstract
>
> [1] The potential effect on surface water pH of emissions of SOX and NOX from
> global ship routes is assessed. The results indicate that regional pH
> reductions of the same order of magnitude as the CO2-driven acidification can
> occur in heavily trafficked waters. These findings have important
> consequences for ocean chemistry, since the sulfuric and nitric acids formed
> are strong acids in contrast to the weak carbonic acid formed by dissolution
> of CO2. Our results also provide background for discussion of expanded
> controls to mitigate acidification due to these shipping emissions.
>
>
>
> --
> 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.
--
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.
