Oliver,
Thanks for asking about high-nutrient low-chlorophyll (HNLC) water. Doesn't matter if the water is currently LNLC, HNLC, HNHC, or LNHC, the life in it is endangered by dropping pH and warming. Good idea to grow and harvest a lot of macroalgae to raise pH. Even better if your macroalgae forests have warming adaption features.
OceanForesters recommends a food and energy play using forests of seaweed. Every step, excepting the actual storage of the CO2, is paid for by people buying food and energy.
OceanForesters is not and does not recommend "ocean fertilization". Sinking algae to store carbon is unsustainable. At the scale we need to bring atmospheric CO2 concentrations back below 300 ppm, we cannot afford to lose much N, P, and micronutrients in the cycle.
The OceanForesters cycle is grow-harvest-separate the energy from the nutrients and the CO2-recycle all the nutrients-grow-harvest-... This is cradle-grave-cradle-... energy production, powered by the sun, spinning off nearly pure CO2 for storage. We have an opportunity to store mercury with the CO2 and convert plastics to energy.
The scale of energy production is such that spinning off a little of the energy production as food easily feeds 10 billion people. Nutrients to balance the food spin-off are returned via water resource recovery facilities (aka wastewater treatment plants).
---------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: 9% for 36 gton/yr RE: [geo] Re: ocean fertilization
From: Oliver Wingenter <oli...@nmt.edu>
Date: Fri, November 17, 2017 3:42 pm
To: markcap...@podenergy.org
Cc: chris.vivi...@btinternet.com, geoengineering
<geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
Mark,Why would you consider fertilizing water that is not HNLC?Oliver--On Nov 17, 2017 4:08 PM, <markcap...@podenergy.org> wrote:--Chris,Please pass to David.See 2012 paper in Process Safety and Environmental Protection "Negative carbon via Ocean Afforestation".The 2012 paper is a little outdated with only anaerobic digestion as the energy process. Now estimating 5% of world's ocean surface to completely replace fossil fuels (600 quadrillion BTU/yr). The more likely hybrid energy process of hydrothermal liquefaction and anaerobic digestion would mean somewhat less gigatons of CO2 stored each year.The paper discusses recycling plant nutrients from the energy process back to the seaweed.U.S. Department of Energy's Advanced Research Project Agency - Energy is funding 18 seaweed-energy teams in MARINER. Attached describes the two University of Southern Mississippi/OceanForesters teams and has links to the full list of teams.ARPA-E is not discussing CO2 recovery and storage. Our favorite approach that can easily keep up with that rate of CO2 storage is explained in OCEANS'13 MTS/IEEE Technical Program "Secure Seafloor Container CO2 Storage."-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [geo] Re: ocean fertilization
From: Chris Vivian <chris.vivi...@btinternet.com>
Date: Wed, November 15, 2017 2:58 am
To: geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com >
--David,I seem to remember from quite some time ago that a figure of 25% of the global ocean would be required but I cannot remember the source of that figure.Chris.
On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 6:32:08 PM UTC, David Sevier wrote:Does anyone have any ideas of the area of ocean that would be required to absorb 1 gigaton of CO2 if properly fertilized? It would be interesting to understand the potential sized area required for this and the possible volume of nutrients required. Usual caveats about that this has not been tried and studied properly yet apply. I am trying to get an idea of scale of this. It would also be useful to understand the potential fishing stock increase for the area in question. Increased fishing could give an economic underpinning to ocean fertilization.David SevierCarbon Cycle Limited248 Sutton Common RoadSutton, Surrey SM3 9PWEnglandTel 44 (0)208 288 0128Fax 44 (0)208-288 0129This email is private and confidential
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+unsubscribe@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+unsubscribe@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.
