Concepts in Geo-Engineering
Here’s a conversation with a colleague in Australia, Sev Clarke, a brilliant biochemist I’ve had the pleasure of knowing for several years, during which time he and I have traded ideas on geo-engineering. He writes:
Sev: Hi Craig, long time. (Please) consider the feasibility and effectiveness of the following alternative CCS method described here, with supporting documentation here. Documents in the latter url also describe a breakthrough method for cooling the globe, generating renewable energy, stabilising glaciers & the polar vortex, and reducing/harvesting fugitive polar methane emissions. The conceptual technologies are available free, under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licensing, for any of your readers to benefit from their development and deployment.
Craig: Thanks for this; let me publish this as a blog post. May I use your name, or would you rather remain anonymous?
Sev: By all means use my name. Some constructive criticism would also be welcome from your readers, as it would be incredible were I to have everything perfected, and all eventualities covered, at this stage. No one has yet come up with potential show-stoppers, but surely there must be some criticisms beyond doubting whether flake buoyancy can be crafted to endure for months and that there is likely to be some, probably necessary, deep ocean hypoxia in order to prolong carbon biosequestration there. It would also be useful to have others check my flake and ice shield costings, sourcing, risk assessments, timing and logistics. Who knows, but that some scientific and entrepreneurial spirits may be incentivised to prove the concepts to their own, and their country’s, considerable reward.
I will be happy to provide further detail to such organizations, provided only that they evince suitable interest and capability. One beautiful aspect of the twin concepts, is that they largely avoid the politically-partisan divide between left and right, so that all may participate in collaborative dialogue and action.
Craig: Though I understand that there is possible commercial viability here, I doubt it’s a bona fide investment opportunity that would be attractive to anyone with a typical risk/reward profile.
Having said that, it sounds like something that the world’s great philanthropic foundations would seize on instantly. I would love to help you disseminate this idea to the folks who stand at the very top of the climate change mitigation food chain (pardon the pun).
Re: your comment about politics, I’m not sure. In the U.S., we fight over things just for sport. If the Democrats want something, the Republicans oppose it just because the Democrats proposed it (believe it or not). It’s like watching a bunch of eight-year-olds on the school playground. And the will of the people means exactly zero, as I’ve discussed here. Geo-engineering in any of its forms is so controversial that there would be no chance in making this happen in Washington—at this point, at least.
Again, I would take this to the numerous foundations focused on sustainability and the environment, and see if you can’t get them to fund and nurture the idea. Now, is there politics that may work against you in these foundations as well? Of course, but this is really the only avenue I see open here.
Geo engineering is already happening as the Holocene is turning into the Anthropocene. However, extreme ideas are not worth the risk. Anything that requires a form of gmo life spread across the oceans could multiply too much and cause more problems. Using sulfuric acid (to cool the globe) is just plain stupid. And even co2 sequester without geologic timescales is iffy at best. Ideas of space junk to cool the planet are retarded and all the solar and wind energy will most probably not be enough to “do everything”.
By the time global warming kicks in, we’ll have unlimited clean energy – FUSION.
We’ll be able to green an entire desert necessary for the natural geo engineering required to sequester the excess co2 into soils. Only this order of energy supply could desalinate the trillions of gallons of water and make fertilizer. With this kind of energy, we’ll also be able to finally recycle ALL of our trash.
In short, only with fusion energy will we be able to undue the damage caused by our adolescence, power a still developing world into the highest standards possible and embark on doing geo engineering the right way – on other planets and moons in our solar system.
Bty, terrawatt scale pico second lasers are the newly developed tools which will enable HB11 fusion.
I am frankly somewhat confused by this approach. There seems to be something missing either in the explanation or my understanding. The plan is to fertilize the oceans to increase photo plankton. But already there is a massive amount of fertilizer flowing into the oceans as run off from fields into our rivers. This has in turn created massive dead zones in the oceans as microscopic organisms have fed off this fertilizer and depleted the oxygen levels in the oceans. In those areas it seems that we should be increasing oxygen levels not fertilizer levels? Why in other areas does it seem clear that fertilizer levels need to be increased. Can we increase fertilizer levels without concurrently increasing oxygen levels? Is having the fertilizer “float” some attempt to keep the fertilizer where most of the oxygen is available? How will this affect lower levels of the ocean which we might assume will then receive less oxygen because more is being used on the surface.
Geoengineering seems like desperate actions. To poke Gaia may cause it to react unpredicably for its control systems are highly non-linear.
On the other hand, a market for CO2 can be created by capturing it from combustion processes, and make it react with hydrogen from renewable electrolysis (or any other renewable route), thus making a green methanol, which is liquid at room temperature, and that is nice for a transition.
Fireofenergy, my buoyant flakes require no gmo and should be able to sequester sufficient CO2 to offset current and some past emissions.
Breathonthewind, we have too much dissolved fertiliser inshore and too little near the surface of the high seas which are like deserts. Buoyant flakes provide ultra-slow release fertilizer designed to make the oceans as prolific as they were in pre-industrial times and hence equally able to sequester carbon and reduce acidification. The resulting balanced marine ecology would oxygenate surface waters.
Vicente, buoyant flakes simply replace some of the nutrients that we have extracted from the ocean by over-fishing. It is ocean remediation. Whilst we can use some small fraction of emitted CO2 to produce products artificially using renewable energy, would not it be better to use buoyant flakes to generate biomass and biodiversity by natural processes? Also, do not forget that phytoplankton can reduce global warming by the albedo effects they create.
This idea makes more sense than most geo-engineering solutions. The logic appears sound and, as far as I can see, there are no obvious draw-backs in principle.
There will be an energy trade-off in for the collection of suitable waste materials and biomass, flake manufacture and then deployment at sea. A detailed assessment of this would be a useful starting point.
It is difficult to see, however, how this concept could be made into a commercial enterprise. All the costs are borne by the Flake producer (commercial enterprise, government or NGO) whilst the benefits are common (improved fisheries, reduced CO2, etc). Monitoring and measurement of the specific benefits (local and global) of such schemes to demonstrate a cost benefit will be extremely difficult.
As with any geo-engineering solution; to make it work will require global financing and co-operation, and there is little evidence of this in other areas of global good.
Can this process be adapted to deal directly with the hypoxic zones near shore? If so, perhaps more funding can be obtained to at least prove the concept before going on to the high seas.
Leterpeach, Thank you for the qualified support. Few seem to think as clearly as do you. Yes, there is always an energy trade-off amongst costs and benefits. Fortunately, husks, red mud and phosphatic wastes are already collected, typically in huge piles near transportation facilities. The lignin will also be available in clusters from developing biorefineries that are designed to extract the sugars from lignocellulose. Regarding profitability, nation states already have the power to grant harvesting licences over intensively-managed mariculture sites. This only needs to be extended to similar rights over slow-moving rafts of buoyant flakes. Similar rights over rafts on the high seas would need to be agreed internationally, with the licence fees possibly going to a body such as the IMO or UN. Ditto for proven carbon sequestration credits. Independent monitoring and measurement could be contracted out to approved scientific or logistic agencies. Financing of operations would typically be provided by the profit-oriented organisations that managed the flake distribution and/or harvesting.
Da Vinci, Sorry, as hypoxic zones are typically caused by an excess of nutrients and dying biomass, this method is not applicable to remediating them, except insofar as when nutrient-deficient waters overlay over-nutriated and hypoxic zones, in which case the flakes might provide additional oxygenation at the top of the hypoxic zone. Modelling should be able to determine when flakes would be beneficial in individual circumstances.
Your presentation shows pneumatic dispersal from specialist bulk vessels . Would it not be feasible to utilise the fishing fleets themselves as a prerequisite of a license to fish a controlled area? Simply ‘dumping’ flakes as the vessels traverse the fishing grounds would condition the target area in smaller batches but from more vessels and it would engage the fishing community in the project.
This might be more practical for a small scale proof of concept project.
leterpeach, Using fishing vessels could well be practical for a small scale proof of concept and would indeed engage the fishing community. However, for industrial scale dissemination, using old or obsolete bulk carriers that are retro-fitted with hold-manoeuvrable pneumatic extractor pumps & piping and with crane-directed projection tubes astern would seem to be a better interim solution. Once the buoyant flake solution had proven to be commercially viable, purpose-designed drone bulkships of super size might be the way to go. These might also be used to collect materials for flake production on their return voyages, though some mineral fines might not be suited to pneumatic handling. For hazardous polar waters, whale-like bladder-drones using aqueous dissemination of flakes might be preferable.