Mark, where can one find more info about these technologies you mentioned, and
how well do they deal with heavy metals, and toxic chemicals not suitable by
incineration? After recovering the valuable resources from the oysters, what
relative volume/size is of the leftover contaminated oysters?
To all, I did alert the authors of the Chinese paper that started this thread,
by forwarding the relevant critiques on oyster for carbon sequestration to
them, and invited them to join this googlegroup (not sure if they could do so
from inside China though).
Michael, my earlier comment was a direct response to your mixing sewage
treatment and food production together in optimistic statements such as
below:"... if the oysters were grown in an enclosed and submerged HDPEpipeline
bases designed RAS operation, the oyster's solid waste could becollected and
then used to grow microalgae which could then be used to producecarbon negative
products. The algae grown in such a way, even operations positioned directly
over sewage discharge pipes,could supply globally significant and sustainable
supplies of biofuel andbiochar can be produced from the post lipid extraction
biomass. Thatcombination represents an important roadmap to negative emission
on asignificant scale while reducing sewage contamination of our coastal
watersand/or supplying carbon negative protein."
Maggie
On Sunday, March 13, 2016 9:20 PM, "markcap...@podenergy.org"
<markcap...@podenergy.org> wrote:
Michael,
Resource recovery on the contaminated oyster meat is ready for demonstration at
about 10 wet tons per day with Hydrothermal Processes (HTP). Larger scale, but
more expensive, with Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO).
These technologies are demonstrating and making proposals to recover resources
from sewage sludge with first commercial scale units that or larger. I expect
we will recover Phosphate and other metals as a clay like sludge which can be
dried and shipped for processing. Depending on the temperature of operation,
we can recover most of the N as ammonia. Pharmaceuticals and other
carbon/hydrocarbon will be converted to bio-oil and biogas (HTP) or
heat-to-electricity (SCWO).
Mark E. Capron, PE
Ventura, California
www.PODenergy.org
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [geo] carbon sequestration by oysters
From: Michael Hayes <voglerl...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, March 11, 2016 3:36 pm
To: Maggie Zhou <mzhou...@yahoo.com>
Cc: geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>,
"oe...@gm-ingenieurbuero.com" <oe...@gm-ingenieurbuero.com>,
"oliver.tick...@kyoto2.org" <oliver.tick...@kyoto2.org>,
"andrew.lock...@gmail.com" <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>,
"renaud.derich...@gmail.com" <renaud.derich...@gmail.com>,
"gh...@sbcglobal.net" <gh...@sbcglobal.net>
Maggie et al.,
Your absolutely correct on the contamination transfer issue and the importance
of getting that issue recognized in such papers and discussions. In my original
post on this subject (thread), I mentioned that I still have not figured out
what to do with the contaminated oyster meat. About the only long term disposal
would be in deep wells or run through a plasma incinerator equipped with an
extensive emissions filtration system.
However, oyster RAS systems may offer the best approach to trapping the
contaminates and we need to come up with some form of profit incentive to spark
building such systems globally. A large number of high level analyses are
pointing to the sewage contamination issue as a top environmental, human health
care, and policy issue.
Also, it is important to make clear that not all oyster (or mariculture in
general) will be contaminated and that the advanced cultivation technology now
available and in current use can deliver both environmental and nutrient
benefits on a global scale. Bringing this technology to the global scale is the
lowest hanging fruit in the geoengineering spectrum as cheaper/better food and
cleaner waters are critical to improving the global carbon balance (or
imbalance).
Michael
Michael Hayes
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Maggie Zhou <mzhou...@yahoo.com> wrote:
1. Has anyone bothered to contact the authors of the paper (or the journal
editors) that Andrew sent out at the beginning of this thread (growing oysters
to sequester C)? They need to be informed of their misunderstanding of the
ocean chemistry regarding carbon.
2. Municipal water treatment is (or at least should be) about getting rid of
far more than organic matter and nutrients in the waste water. There are heavy
metals, toxic industrial compounds including persistent pesticides, and
radioactive material (diluted and discharged, as following the hare-brained
doctrine "the solution to pollution is dilution"), etc. This whole aspect of
decontamination seems to be missing in the upbeat papers about growing food to
feed more people out of waste water.
Maggie
On Tuesday, March 8, 2016 7:27 PM, Michael Hayes <voglerl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Greg et al.,
Concerning your question "On what basis: per m^2, per mol of photons, per $
invested??? Do you mean aquaculture?": The exact technology which I'm referring
to is Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS). Below is a 5 yo paper which
covers the basic technology and evaluates the benefits. In the last 5 years,
however, there have been further technical improvements which have raised the
basic profit profile and reduced cultivation complexities as well as increased
overall environmental sustainability.
Principle actors in the aqua-protein market, such as Tyson Seafood, are
expanding their use of RAS and have started using a fully circular method in
which the fish solid waste is used to grow microalgae which, in turn, is used
to feed copepods-kril which are then used as fish feed. Currently, it is a 1:1
feed to fish pound ratio yet they hope to get below that level soon. It is my
belief that once these advanced RAS operations begin to be established on the
ocean surface (or below it), The environmental sustainability and profits will
significantly increase as the oceans offer easily converted renewable energy,
passive thermal support, free spacial accommodation, fewer regulatory burdens,
as well as an abundance (if not an over abundance) of nutrients to drive the
primary production.
New developments in recirculating aquaculture systems in Europe: Aperspective
on environmental sustainability
C.I.M. Martinsa, b, *, E.H. Edinga , M.C.J. Verdegema , L.T.N. Heinsbroeka , O.
Schneiderc , J.P. Blanchetond , E. Roque d’Orbcasteld and J.A.J. Verretha a
Aquaculture and Fisheries Group, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 338, 6700 AH,
Wageningen, The Netherlands b CCMAR – Centro de Ciências do Mar, Universidade
do Algarve, Campus de Gambelas, P-8005-139, Faro, Portugal c IMARES,
Korringaweg 5, 4401 NT Yerseke, The Netherlands d IFREMER, Station
d’Aquaculture Expérimentale, Laboratoire de Recherche Piscicole de
Méditerranée, Chemin de Maguelone, 34250 Palavas-les-Flots, France *:
Corresponding author : C.I.M. Martins, Tel.: +351 289 800900x7167; fax: +351
289 800051, email address : cimart...@ualg.pt
‘Producing more food from the same area of land while reducing the
environmental impacts requires what has been called sustainable
intensification‘ wrote Godfray et al. (2010) in a recent review about the
challenge of feeding 9 billion people. The key question is how can more food
(in the scope of this review, more fish) be produced sustainably? Considering
all aquaculture production systems in use today, RAS offers the possibility to
achieve a high production, maintaining optimal environmental conditions,
securing animal welfare, while creating a minimum ecological impact. At
present, the use of RAS is growing in Europe, for grow-out of freshwater (eel
and catfish) and marine species (turbot, seabass and sole) but also for
fingerling production of both freshwater and marine species. Recent research
aiming to improve water treatment efficiency (denitrification reactors, sludge
thickening technologies and ozone) allows reducing water refreshment rates,
creating nearly closed systems, producing a small quantity of an easy to treat
and valuable waste product for use in IAA or IMTA systems. Despite the recent
developments that will certainly foster the environmental sustainability of
RAS, the potential accumulation of substances in the water as a consequence of
reduced water refreshment rates may pose new challenges. A deeper understanding
of the interaction between the fish and the system will help facing these
challenges.
In reviewing the RAS technology, please keep in mind that:
1) large diameter HDPE culvert pipelines can be used as completely enclosed
circular RAS raceways and, as a side benefits,
a) due to the dual walled construction, this type of RAS farm would be
float-able and offer built-in buoyancy control chambers b) HDPE has the lowest
bio-fouling properties of all plastics tested to date. c) HDPE can use up to
40% of post consumer plastic and is well recognized as food quality plastic
2) these off-the-self HDPE pipeline based ocean RAS farms can be used on or
below the surface of the oceans thus allowing for passive thermal control,
avoidance of high sea wave stresses, and can be 'stacked' down to the depth
tolerance of the cultivar and thus use minimal surface area. This makes the use
of m2 in the calculations difficult. The use of internal pipeline/raceway
volume may be best. Also, as the farms would be using artificial light and/or
chemosynthesis and that ocean energy conversion will be used to provide energy
for those functions, the efficiency of the conversion method should replace the
mole/photon aspect of the equation. The Salter Duck has a >90% wave energy
conversion rating.
3) such oceanic farms can be platforms for a number of other profitable
operations such tourism, seafloor mining, CO2 sea floor injection etc.
Example a) An Idea to Connect Vertically with the Deep Sea
Example b) The Botanical City Concept
4) and large scale RAS ocean farming operations would offer excellent platforms
for programs which lack basic profit potential such as MCB, water pH
adjustment, passive and active surface cooling through shading and use of deep
water for systems cooling, CO2 and nutrient capture etc.
In brief, advanced RAS oceanic platforms offer a technical and profit
foundation for other profit based mitigation businesses as well as
non-profitable mitigation operations while also allowing for non-relevant
businesses interests such as tourism. If you want to help make sure an oceanic
RAS farm is profitable, build a casino on top of it:)
Greg, I'm sure you, yourself, know of the many downstream products that are
possible with the production of algae; However, for those that have not studied
the technology, I'm including a simple graphic showing just how extensive the
list of potential micro-algal based products are. And the below list is not
exhaustive (i.e. Biochar is not included).
To conclude, taken as a whole and as a part of a larger sustainability and
efficiency technical plan, oceanic RAS based mariculture offers an important
base to work from in the creation of an overall profitable approach to a
multifaceted and extensive climate change mitigation and adaptation effort.
Greg, thanks for the links and insights...as usual.
Andrew, if the oysters were grown in an enclosed and submerged HDPE pipeline
bases designed RAS operation, the oyster's solid waste could be collected and
then used to grow microalgae which could then be used to produce carbon
negative products. The algae grown in such a way, even operations positioned
directly over sewage discharge pipes, could supply globally significant and
sustainable supplies of biofuel and biochar can be produced from the post lipid
extraction biomass. That combination represents an important roadmap to
negative emission on a significant scale while reducing sewage contamination of
our coastal waters and/or supplying carbon negative protein.
However, thank you for the link.
Michael
On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 5:21:50 PM UTC-8, Greg Rau wrote:
Well, grinding up CaCO3 and adding to the ocean has been considered, but unless
and until this hits water that is significantly more acidic and carbonate
undersaturated than typical surface seawater, not much will happens:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley. com/doi/10.1029/2007JC004373/ abstract
Adding to high CO2 wastewater streams might be effective.
>From a CO2 management standpoint, I would think that non-calcifying consumers
>of waste water organics would do a less impactful clean up job that would
>CO2-generating calcifiers like oysters.
Then there is a hybrid microbial+geochemical method of wastewater, CO2, and
energy management that might be the most area-efficient, cost effective and
beneficial of all?: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/ 10.1021/acs.est.5b00875
"seafood production is our most efficient and sustainable protein source"
On what basis: per m^2, per mol of photons, per $ invested??? Do you mean
aquaculture?
Greg
From: Michael Hayes <vogle...@gmail.com>
To: geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups. com>
Cc: oe...@gm-ingenieurbuero.com; oliver....@kyoto2.org; andrew....@gmail.com;
renaud.d...@gmail.com; gh...@sbcglobal.net
Sent: Friday, March 4, 2016 4:51 PM
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [geo] carbon sequestration by oysters
Greg, would not grinding the shells down to micro size and sending the material
back to the water effectively accomplish your view that "On the other hand,
reverse this reaction and you might have something:"?
In general, seafood production is our most efficient and sustainable protein
source and oysters in particular are our best hope of cleaning up the human
sewage we're mainlining into our estuaries and coastal seas. There are no major
environmental issues with using large scale oyster farms in direct association
with municipal waste systems. The only question would be what would be done
with the contaminated meat.
Cleaning up the sewage would have multiple positive effects on the C capture
and sequestration function of our coastal oceans as well as human health and
those positive effects need to be factored into this debate. I've just finished
reading 'Environmental Governance of the Great Seas: Law and Effect' (Joseph
F.C. DiMento, Alexis Jaclyn Hickman) and the authors clearly point out, case
after case, how sewage is causing havoc at the environmental, health and even
policy levels. Beyond banning sewage discharge (which will not happen in our
lifetime), what better way do we have in cleaning this up than using oysters?
Michael
On Thursday, March 3, 2016 at 11:06:43 AM UTC-8, Greg Rau wrote:
Further questionable shells-as-CO2-management advocacy
here:http://www.thefishsite.com/ articles/615/carbon-
sequestration-potential-of- shellfish/
http://earthtechling.com/2016/ 03/could-oyster-shells- sequester-carbon/
As Oliver points out, typical marine CaCO3 formation generates CO2 at the
expense of dissolved seawater calcium and bicarbonate ions: Ca(HCO3)2aq --->
CaCO3s + CO2g + H2O. On the other hand, reverse this reaction and you might
have something:http://climatecolab.org/ contests/2012/electric-power-
sector/c/proposal/1304174
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/ 10.1021/es102671x
You can consume CO2 and generate marine CO3s by adding an externally derived
source of alkalinity, e.g. silicate minerals, kinetics permitting. However, my
preference here would be to generate dissolved bicarbonates. This about
doubles the carbon stored per mol of alkalinity added, while the dissolved form
helps counter the bio effects of ocean acidification.
Then there is the Franz's angle that shellfish consume and repackage plankton
in a way that better sequesters this carbon and keeps it from regenerating CO2.
This is probably true, but how big is this carbon pool relative to the CO2
generated above and generated by shellfish respiration that is the largest fate
of plankton C consumed by shellfish? In general then, aren't shellfish net
sources of CO2, and don't shellfish producers and consumers then need to be
taxed according? ;-)
Greg
From: Oeste <oe...@gm-ingenieurbuero.com>
To: oliver....@kyoto2.org; andrew....@gmail.com; geoengineering
<geoengi...@googlegroups. com>
Cc: Renaud de RICHTER <renaud.d...@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 2, 2016 5:37 AM
Subject: Re[2]: [geo] carbon sequestration by oysters
Completion of the argument from Oliver Tickell against oyster farming in the
ocean or shelf might induce the opposite result: Oysters are filter feeders
within the food chain. They remove all kind of suspended matter from the water
column inklusive phytoplankton, phytoplankton detritus, clay particles and
bacteria. They produce faeces in the shape of rather solid pellets containing
organic C plus carbonate and silicate shells of the phytoplankton plus some
clay. The faeces pellets become much faster sedimented than the suspended
matter they did feed with. This might be the reason that oysters induce a lower
loss of debris oxidation and dissolution to CO2 and/or HCO3- on their way down
as without the oyster action. The CaCO3 shell debris of dead oysters becomes as
well part of the sediment. These and similar processes of food chain dependence
turn ocean sediments into organic and inorganic C storages. Have a look at an
fictive ocean containing a food chain composed only of phytoplankton and
bacteria: Organic and inorganic waste of phytoplankton sinks down to the
sediment very slowly: The organic debris would be consumed complete by bacteria
during the slow sinking of the debris, even the slow sinking small CaCO3 and
SiO2 shells of the phytoplankton might even come to complete dissolution on
their way down. This would result in an ocean much more acidified and
probable with much more oxygen deficient zones than any ocean habitat
containing oysters and further parts of the recent food chain. All sediments
within the deeper ocean basins below the calcium carbonate compensation depth
would be free of any inorganic and organic C. Franz D. Oeste ------
Originalnachricht ------ Von: "Oliver Tickell" <oliver....@kyoto2.org> An:
andrew....@gmail.com; "geoengineering" <geoengi...@googlegroups. com> Gesendet:
02.03.2016 10:30:25 Betreff: Re: [geo] carbon sequestration by oysters
There seems to be a fundamental error in this analysis. Far from sequestering
CO2, this process emits CO2 to the atmosphere according to the reaction:
Ca++ + 2HCO3- => CaCO3 + CO2
In the process depleting ocean alkalinity.
Oliver.
On 01/03/2016 22:27, Andrew Lockley wrote:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ pubmed/25796916 Ying Yong Sheng Tai Xue Bao. 2014
Oct;25(10):3032-8. Estimation and experiment of carbon sequestration by oysters
attached to the enhancement artificial reefs in Laizhou Bay, Shandong, China
Gong PH, Li J, Guan CT, Li MJ, Liu C. Abstract Through sampling investigation
of fouling organisms on the enhancement artificial reefs set up in Laizhou Bay,
it was proved that oyster (Ostrea plicatula) was the dominant fouling species.
Therefore the dry mass of shell (Ms), total fresh mass (Mt) and thickness (T)
of oyster attached on the reefs were analyzed. The results showed that the Mt
and Ms presented seasonal variation (P < 0.01), that is, the values were the
lowest in April and the highest in December. The reef age and the length of the
time the enhancement reefs placed in the sea had significant effect on Mt, Ms
and T. With the increment of reef ages, all indices increased obviously. The
carbon sinks of oysters attaching to the tube enhancement reefs constructed in
2009, 2010 and 2011 in Laizhou Bay were 17.61, 16.33 and 10.45 kg · m(-3),
respectively. The oysters on the enhancement reefs of Jincheng marine ranch
with an area of 64.25 hm2 had fixed carbon of 297.5 t C (equivalent to 1071 t
of CO2) from 2009 to 2013 in Laizhou Bay. To capture and store the same amount
of CO2 would cost about 1.6 x 10(5)-6.4 x 10(5) US dollars. Therefore, oysters
attaching to the enhancement reefs bring about remarkable ecological benefits.
PMID: 25796916--
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.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups. com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/ group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.
--
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.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups. com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/ group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.
--
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.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups. com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/ group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
