[geo] Ocean based algal growth: rate of CO2 transfer

[Peter Flynn]

I am joining this discussion late, so I hope I am not covering ground
already discussed.



Some years back a graduate student and I looked at a conceptual scheme to
grow algae and sink them into the deep ocean, using increased salinity from
evaporation as the “pump”. We found that the rate limiting step was not
sunlight or evaporation, but rather the transport of carbon dioxide from
the atmosphere into the ocean. This was, as I recall, 10 times slower than
the potential rate of growth of the algae.



We came to understand why agitation and CO2 addition are included in some
commercial algal farms.



Peter Flynn



Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.

Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers

Department of Mechanical Engineering

University of Alberta

peter.fl...@ualberta.ca

cell: 928 451 4455

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

RE: [geo] Ocean based algal growth: rate of CO2 transfer

[markcapron]

Peter,
 
The calculations in "Negative carbon via Ocean Afforestation" are based on actual macroalgae growth rates with whatever CO2 transfer and nutrients are naturally available.  Either may be limiting.
 
Your experience would appear to confirm our seaweed forests can be havens of high pH for critters in need of pre-industrial pH for shell formation.

Mark E. Capron, PEOxnard, Californiawww.PODenergy.org
 
 

 Original Message Subject: [geo] Ocean based algal growth: rate of CO2 transferFrom: Peter Flynn Date: Wed, January 09, 2013 6:36 pmTo: geoengineering@googlegroups.com



I am joining this discussion late, so I hope I am not covering ground already discussed.
 
Some years back a graduate student and I looked at a conceptual scheme to grow algae and sink them into the deep ocean, using increased salinity from evaporation as the “pump”. We found that the rate limiting step was not sunlight or evaporation, but rather the transport of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere into the ocean. This was, as I recall, 10 times slower than the potential rate of growth of the algae.
 
We came to understand why agitation and CO2 addition are included in some commercial algal farms.
 
Peter Flynn
 
Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.
Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers
Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of Alberta
peter.fl...@ualberta.ca
cell: 928 451 4455
 
 
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

Re: [geo] Ocean based algal growth: rate of CO2 transfer

[Michael Hayes]

Also Peter,
 
The 'Perpetual Salt Fountain' is a great addition to any large scale algae 
operation.
 
http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/JO/pdf/6003/60030563.pdf
 
*"Deep seawater in the ocean contains a great deal of nutrients. Stommel et 
al. have
proposed the notion of a “perpetual salt fountain” (Stommel et al., 1956). 
They noted
the possibility of a permanent upwelling of deep seawater with no 
additional external
energy source. If we can cause deep seawater to upwell extensively, we can 
achieve an
ocean farm. We have succeeded in measuring the upwelling velocity by an 
experiment
in the Mariana Trench area using a special measurement system. A 0.3 m 
diameter,
280 m long soft pipe made of PVC sheet was used in the experiment. The 
measured
data, a verification experiment, and numerical simulation results, gave an 
estimate
of upwelling velocity of 212 m/day."*
 
 I've realized that the basic configuration of the tube can be converted 
into a large through put 'trash' pump, with minor mods, and powered by wave 
energy conversion. Deployed on a large scale, this system 
would significantly increase the microbial loop rate of production and thus 
produce a carbon sink multiplier for any macro algae farm system (not to 
mention an increase in marine life at all levels). Deep water C4 plant 
farms (gyres are lest problematic for production placement) can be scaled 
up to 'geoengineering' relevance with possible self funding commercial 
activities. Littoral deployments are possible but the artificial up welling 
would need a corresponding artifical down welling to prevent dead zones 
down current from the up welling. 
 
Here is a link to a few thoughts Mark and I exchanged some time ago. 
 
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/geoengineering/wyLXSagkvsw/discussion
 
 *"Mark Capron has proposed Ocean Afforestation within this forum going 
back to at least 09. And, much of that work is centered around diatom 
enhancement for general CCS and possible biomass harvesting for methane 
fuel production and more. C4 halophytes (1) could be an important 
enhancement to that initial ocean afforestation strategy."*
 
I'm glad to see this issue come back up in this group. IMHO, Ocean 
Afforestation is our best long term hope to stabilize the climate and 
adjust the ocean pH. Initial math indicated that up to 6% of the earth 
needed to be put into production to off set current CO2 emissions. Wide 
spread use of the Perpetual Salt Fountain System may reduce the needed area 
substantially
.
I hope this helped.
 
Michael
 
 
 
 

On Thursday, January 10, 2013 8:29:54 PM UTC-8, MarkCapron wrote:

>  Peter,
>  
> The calculations in "Negative carbon via Ocean Afforestation" are based on 
> actual macroalgae growth rates with whatever CO2 transfer and nutrients are 
> naturally available.  Either may be limiting.
>  
> Your experience would appear to confirm our seaweed forests can be havens 
> of high pH for critters in need of pre-industrial pH for shell formation.
>
> Mark E. Capron, PE
> Oxnard, California
> www.PODenergy.org
>  
>  
>
>  Original Message 
> Subject: [geo] Ocean based algal growth: rate of CO2 transfer
> From: Peter Flynn >
> Date: Wed, January 09, 2013 6:36 pm
> To: geoengi...@googlegroups.com 
>
>  I am joining this discussion late, so I hope I am not covering ground 
> already discussed.
>  
> Some years back a graduate student and I looked at a conceptual scheme to 
> grow algae and sink them into the deep ocean, using increased salinity from 
> evaporation as the “pump”. We found that the rate limiting step was not 
> sunlight or evaporation, but rather the transport of carbon dioxide from 
> the atmosphere into the ocean. This was, as I recall, 10 times slower than 
> the potential rate of growth of the algae.
>  
> We came to understand why agitation and CO2 addition are included in some 
> commercial algal farms.
>  
> Peter Flynn
>  
> Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.
> Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers
> Department of Mechanical Engineering
> University of Alberta
> peter...@ualberta.ca 
> cell: 928 451 4455
>  
>  
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "geoengineering" group.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com .
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/jYZavP37IswJ.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

Re: [geo] Ocean based algal growth: rate of CO2 transfer

[Chris]

iting.
>>  
>> Your experience would appear to confirm our seaweed forests can be havens 
>> of high pH for critters in need of pre-industrial pH for shell formation.
>>
>> Mark E. Capron, PE
>> Oxnard, California
>> www.PODenergy.org
>>  
>>  
>>
>>  Original Message 
>> Subject: [geo] Ocean based algal growth: rate of CO2 transfer
>> From: Peter Flynn 
>> Date: Wed, January 09, 2013 6:36 pm
>> To: geoengi...@googlegroups.com
>>
>>  I am joining this discussion late, so I hope I am not covering ground 
>> already discussed.
>>  
>> Some years back a graduate student and I looked at a conceptual scheme to 
>> grow algae and sink them into the deep ocean, using increased salinity from 
>> evaporation as the “pump”. We found that the rate limiting step was not 
>> sunlight or evaporation, but rather the transport of carbon dioxide from 
>> the atmosphere into the ocean. This was, as I recall, 10 times slower than 
>> the potential rate of growth of the algae.
>>  
>> We came to understand why agitation and CO2 addition are included in some 
>> commercial algal farms.
>>  
>> Peter Flynn
>>  
>> Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.
>> Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers
>> Department of Mechanical Engineering
>> University of Alberta
>> peter...@ualberta.ca
>> cell: 928 451 4455
>>  
>>  
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "geoengineering" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>> geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at 
>> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/HQZJQCJdd7gJ.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

Re: [geo] Ocean based algal growth: rate of CO2 transfer

[Rau, Greg]

Also, returning to Peter's original email:

"We found that the rate limiting step [for primary production?] was not 
sunlight or evaporation, but rather the transport of carbon dioxide from the 
atmosphere into the ocean. This was, as I recall, 10 times slower than the 
potential rate of growth of the algae."

Granted, if marine phototrophs used only CO2 they might get carbon limited 
considering that molecular CO2 is only about 10-20 uM in seawater. Yet total 
dissolved inorganic carbon in seawater is some 100 times higher in 
concentration, 2mM, nearly all of which is bicarbonate and a major carbon 
substrate for marine microalgae (though perhaps not macroalgae). So nutrient 
and light limitation of the marine carbon pump will occur way before carbon 
limitation does, e.g. Iron fertilization.

In any case if/when molecular dissolved CO2 is consumed from seawater, then pH, 
[CO3--],  and [OH-] rise, and air to sea CO2 flux is (greatly) chemically 
enhanced because of these reactions: CO2 + OH-  ---> HCO3- and CO2 + H2O + 
CO3-- ---> 2HCO3-,  relative to pure passive diffusion and hydration of CO2: 
CO2 + H2O ---> H+ + HCO3-  .  No?

-Greg

From: Chris mailto:chris.viv...@cefas.co.uk>>
Reply-To: "chris.viv...@cefas.co.uk<mailto:chris.viv...@cefas.co.uk>" 
mailto:chris.viv...@cefas.co.uk>>
Date: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 4:03 AM
To: geoengineering 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>
Cc: "pcfl...@ualberta.ca<mailto:pcfl...@ualberta.ca>" 
mailto:pcfl...@ualberta.ca>>
Subject: Re: [geo] Ocean based algal growth: rate of CO2 transfer

Michael,


While deep seawater in the ocean does indeed contain a great deal of nutrients, 
it also contains high levels of dissolved inorganic carbon derived from the 
degradation of sinking organic matter generated in surface waters. Thus, 
bringing deep seawater to the surface will lead to outgassing of CO2 to the 
atmosphere that would greatly reduce if not eliminate the climate benefits of 
the schemes as indicated in the papers below:

Dutreuil, S., Bopp, L. and Tagliabue, A. (2009) Impact of enhanced vertical 
mixing on marine biogeochemistry: Lessons for geo-engineering and natural 
variability. Biogeosciences Vol. 6, 901-912.

http://www.biogeosciences.net/6/901/2009/bg-6-901-2009.pdf

Oschlies, A., Pahlow, M., Yool, A. and Matear, R. J. (2010) Climate engineering 
by artificial ocean upwelling - channelling the sorcerer's apprentice 
Geophysical Research Letters, 37, L04701.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009GL041961/abstract

Yool, A., Shepherd, J. G., Bryden, H. L. and Oschlies, A. (2009), Low 
efficiency of nutrient translocation for enhancing oceanic uptake of carbon 
dioxide, Journal of Geophysical research - Oceans 114, C08009,

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JC004792/abstract

Note also that bringing up deep seawater for other purposes such as Ocean 
Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) and Deep Water Source Cooling/Seawater Air 
Conditioning has the same problem

Chris.

On Tuesday, 15 January 2013 22:21:14 UTC, Michael Hayes wrote:
Also Peter,

The 'Perpetual Salt Fountain' is a great addition to any large scale algae 
operation.

http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/JO/pdf/6003/60030563.pdf

"Deep seawater in the ocean contains a great deal of nutrients. Stommel et al. 
have
proposed the notion of a “perpetual salt fountain” (Stommel et al., 1956). They 
noted
the possibility of a permanent upwelling of deep seawater with no additional 
external
energy source. If we can cause deep seawater to upwell extensively, we can 
achieve an
ocean farm. We have succeeded in measuring the upwelling velocity by an 
experiment
in the Mariana Trench area using a special measurement system. A 0.3 m diameter,
280 m long soft pipe made of PVC sheet was used in the experiment. The measured
data, a verification experiment, and numerical simulation results, gave an 
estimate
of upwelling velocity of 212 m/day."

I've realized that the basic configuration of the tube can be converted into a 
large through put 'trash' pump, with minor mods, and powered by wave energy 
conversion. Deployed on a large scale, this system would significantly increase 
the microbial loop rate of production and thus produce a carbon sink multiplier 
for any macro algae farm system (not to mention an increase in marine life at 
all levels). Deep water C4 plant farms (gyres are lest problematic for 
production placement) can be scaled up to 'geoengineering' relevance with 
possible self funding commercial activities. Littoral deployments are possible 
but the artificial up welling would need a corresponding artifical down welling 
to prevent dead zones down current from the up welling.

Here is a link to a few thoughts Mark and I exchanged some time ago.

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/geoengineering/wyLXSagkvsw/discussion

"Mark

Re: [geo] Ocean based algal growth: rate of CO2 transfer

[John Nissen]

ing
>> back to at least 09. And, much of that work is centered around diatom
>> enhancement for general CCS and possible biomass harvesting for methane
>> fuel production and more. C4 halophytes (1) could be an important
>> enhancement to that initial ocean afforestation strategy."*
>>
>> I'm glad to see this issue come back up in this group. IMHO, Ocean
>> Afforestation is our best long term hope to stabilize the climate and
>> adjust the ocean pH. Initial math indicated that up to 6% of the earth
>> needed to be put into production to off set current CO2 emissions. Wide
>> spread use of the Perpetual Salt Fountain System may reduce the needed area
>> substantially
>> .
>> I hope this helped.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, January 10, 2013 8:29:54 PM UTC-8, MarkCapron wrote:
>>
>>>  Peter,
>>>
>>> The calculations in "Negative carbon via Ocean Afforestation" are based
>>> on actual macroalgae growth rates with whatever CO2 transfer and nutrients
>>> are naturally available.  Either may be limiting.
>>>
>>> Your experience would appear to confirm our seaweed forests can be
>>> havens of high pH for critters in need of pre-industrial pH for shell
>>> formation.
>>>
>>> Mark E. Capron, PE
>>> Oxnard, California
>>> www.PODenergy.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  Original Message 
>>> Subject: [geo] Ocean based algal growth: rate of CO2 transfer
>>> From: Peter Flynn 
>>> Date: Wed, January 09, 2013 6:36 pm
>>> To: geoengi...@googlegroups.com
>>>
>>>  I am joining this discussion late, so I hope I am not covering ground
>>> already discussed.
>>>
>>> Some years back a graduate student and I looked at a conceptual scheme
>>> to grow algae and sink them into the deep ocean, using increased salinity
>>> from evaporation as the “pump”. We found that the rate limiting step was
>>> not sunlight or evaporation, but rather the transport of carbon dioxide
>>> from the atmosphere into the ocean. This was, as I recall, 10 times slower
>>> than the potential rate of growth of the algae.
>>>
>>> We came to understand why agitation and CO2 addition are included in
>>> some commercial algal farms.
>>>
>>> Peter Flynn
>>>
>>> Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.
>>> Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers
>>> Department of Mechanical Engineering
>>> University of Alberta
>>> peter...@ualberta.ca
>>> cell: 928 451 4455
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "geoengineering" group.
>>> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>> geoengineerin...@googlegroups.**com.
>>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
>>> group/geoengineering?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en>
>>> .
>>>
>>>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/HQZJQCJdd7gJ.
>
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

Re: [geo] Ocean based algal growth: rate of CO2 transfer

[Andrew Lockley]

>> would significantly increase the microbial loop rate of production and thus
>>> produce a carbon sink multiplier for any macro algae farm system (not to
>>> mention an increase in marine life at all levels). Deep water C4 plant
>>> farms (gyres are lest problematic for production placement) can be scaled
>>> up to 'geoengineering' relevance with possible self funding commercial
>>> activities. Littoral deployments are possible but the artificial up welling
>>> would need a corresponding artifical down welling to prevent dead zones
>>> down current from the up welling.
>>>
>>> Here is a link to a few thoughts Mark and I exchanged some time ago.
>>>
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/**topic/geoengineering/**
>>> wyLXSagkvsw/discussion<https://groups.google.com/d/topic/geoengineering/wyLXSagkvsw/discussion>
>>>
>>>  *"Mark Capron has proposed Ocean Afforestation within this forum going
>>> back to at least 09. And, much of that work is centered around diatom
>>> enhancement for general CCS and possible biomass harvesting for methane
>>> fuel production and more. C4 halophytes (1) could be an important
>>> enhancement to that initial ocean afforestation strategy."*
>>>
>>> I'm glad to see this issue come back up in this group. IMHO, Ocean
>>> Afforestation is our best long term hope to stabilize the climate and
>>> adjust the ocean pH. Initial math indicated that up to 6% of the earth
>>> needed to be put into production to off set current CO2 emissions. Wide
>>> spread use of the Perpetual Salt Fountain System may reduce the needed area
>>> substantially
>>> .
>>> I hope this helped.
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, January 10, 2013 8:29:54 PM UTC-8, MarkCapron wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Peter,
>>>>
>>>> The calculations in "Negative carbon via Ocean Afforestation" are based
>>>> on actual macroalgae growth rates with whatever CO2 transfer and nutrients
>>>> are naturally available.  Either may be limiting.
>>>>
>>>> Your experience would appear to confirm our seaweed forests can be
>>>> havens of high pH for critters in need of pre-industrial pH for shell
>>>> formation.
>>>>
>>>> Mark E. Capron, PE
>>>> Oxnard, California
>>>> www.PODenergy.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  Original Message 
>>>> Subject: [geo] Ocean based algal growth: rate of CO2 transfer
>>>> From: Peter Flynn 
>>>> Date: Wed, January 09, 2013 6:36 pm
>>>> To: geoengi...@googlegroups.com
>>>>
>>>>  I am joining this discussion late, so I hope I am not covering ground
>>>> already discussed.
>>>>
>>>> Some years back a graduate student and I looked at a conceptual scheme
>>>> to grow algae and sink them into the deep ocean, using increased salinity
>>>> from evaporation as the “pump”. We found that the rate limiting step was
>>>> not sunlight or evaporation, but rather the transport of carbon dioxide
>>>> from the atmosphere into the ocean. This was, as I recall, 10 times slower
>>>> than the potential rate of growth of the algae.
>>>>
>>>> We came to understand why agitation and CO2 addition are included in
>>>> some commercial algal farms.
>>>>
>>>> Peter Flynn
>>>>
>>>> Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.
>>>> Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers
>>>> Department of Mechanical Engineering
>>>> University of Alberta
>>>> peter...@ualberta.ca
>>>> cell: 928 451 4455
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>> Groups "geoengineering" group.
>>>> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
>>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>>>> geoengineerin...@googlegroups.**com.
>>>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
>>>> group/geoengineering?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>>  --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "geoengineering" group.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/HQZJQCJdd7gJ.
>>
>> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "geoengineering" group.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.