good point Bhaskar. What I meant to say is that as a global solution CDR requires a carbon price of some kind to provide the engine that drives the many types, OIF, mineral sequestration, biochar BECCS and so forth. Of all those types the fisheries OIF you detail is the only one I can think of offhand that could be independent & profitable - a reversal of the usual situation for CDR proponents who have a CDR process in desperate need of an economic rationale. (How much CO2 OIF actually does sequester is still unclear to me, other than it would vary with circumstances).
On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 4:11 AM, M V Bhaskar <bhaskarmv...@gmail.com> wrote: > Bill > > The actual cost of the Iron used in the Haida Nation experiment was very > low. > The $ 2 million cost includes all the data collection cost and special > ships used. > > You wrote - > "And vice versa: pursuing CDR via a carbon price (and is there any other > serious way?) " > > Yes, there is another serious way, as you have noted the cost of the Haida > Nation experiment was $ 2 million and increase in Salmon was 50 million, at > just $ 1 per salmon, this is a profit of $ 48 million. > So Iron Fertilization does NOT require carbon credits, if some of the fish > can be caught and sold. > > Fish in the oceans are said to have declined from about 8 to 15 Billion > tons 200 years ago to about 0.8 to 2 Billion tons at present. So restoring > fish back to the earlier levels and perhaps even exceeding that limit would > be very profitable. > > Billions of tons of Carbon can be sequestered merely as a by product of > the goal of increasing fish. > > Regards > > Bhaskar > > On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 15:26:57 UTC+5:30, Bill Stahl wrote: >> >> A belated response: >> This is all very loose, but if the original cost of the project (per >> Bhaskar) was $ 2 Million, and (per the quote from the National Review) the >> results in the Fraser River alone were ~50 million more fish more than the >> previous record (and George cites a delta of 170 million fish overall) - >> what is the value per fish, or million fish? Perhaps David Lewis could >> guess at that. And the resulting ROI on the 2 million USD? >> >> On Russ George, I understand a skeptical response based on his >> history...& the man courts controversy the way the Pope hold mass. But *in >> addition* to that I see him used as a rhetorical foil, as a way to prove >> the speaker's respectability by way of contrast. Include an open-minded >> paragraph on the value of OIF research, then close out with 'except for >> Russ George's work which has no value, of course'. (This is not a quote) >> The recent Newsweek article on GE was an example, if I recall correctly. If >> the guy (and the Haida of course) did an experiment and generated data, >> then that's interesting and will have consequences. It's not as if he was >> beheading hamsters in bulk or something! (Oh wait, that's entirely >> respectable...for neuroscience). He has moved the subject forward, even >> amid a storm of disapproval. >> >> If the world does institute a consistent carbon price, and if OIF can >> deliver at a cost that makes it relevant, it will be researched regardless >> of whether it is 'respectable'. If it's already a money-maker for other >> reasons, that will pretty hard to stop. >> >> Pet peeve: There is no bright line between a carbon price to reduce >> emissions and a carbon price for CDR. If you pursue the first you encourage >> the latter, even if you are unaware of or hostile to it. And vice versa: >> pursuing CDR via a carbon price (and is there any other serious way?) >> won't distract from emissions reduction because any carbon price capable of >> pushing CDR will have an even stronger impact on emissions. >> >> On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 9:07 AM, David Lewis <jrando...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I'm sorry to have written something anyone might take to be supportive >>> of what the ETC group has been doing in regard to geoengineering. >>> >>> However, whenever I think about Russ George, the fact that he once >>> claimed to be in the process of bringing to market a lab tested cold fusion >>> room heater does come into my mind. >>> >>> My grandfather was a salmon fisherman on the British Columbia coast. I >>> worked with him on his boat when I was a teenager. Hence my great interest >>> when I first heard about what the Haida had done. I supported the iron >>> fertilization project at the time. I was critical of ETC at the time. I'm >>> with those who say what is one application of 100 tonnes of iron compared >>> to the sewage that is dumped into the Pacific Ocean on a daily basis, or >>> compared to the annual application of fertilizer to farms on land? I >>> support further research into fertilizing the ocean. I think most people >>> who fish the British Columbia coast will be very supportive of further >>> research. >>> >>> On Friday, December 5, 2014 11:59:16 AM UTC-8, Robert Tulip wrote: >>>> >>>> David Lewis commented on November 18 about Russ George and the Haida >>>> Salmon Ocean Iron Fertilization Project. David said >>>> >>>> "Just because a snake oil salesman happened to find out along with the >>>> rest of us that there are interesting indications that, for once, his >>>> bottles may actually have contained something efficacious doesn't mean his >>>> critics on this OIF project were "persecuting" him." >>>> >>>> >>>> It is not fair or correct to describe Russ George as a snake oil >>>> salesman, despite the problems that David describes in George's work dating >>>> from 1999 on another topic. >>>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >>> Google Groups "geoengineering" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ >>> topic/geoengineering/dzs-Ii_V9sw/unsubscribe. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>> geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com. >>> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com. >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Thanks, >> Bill Stahl >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/geoengineering/dzs-Ii_V9sw/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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/d/optout. > -- Thanks, Bill Stahl -- 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/d/optout.
