Carbon Capture Suggestion

[StringJunky]

55 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I don't think we are on the same wavelength here.

Yes, we are really just interested in raising the solute concentration gradient towards to the more biotic upper layer

Edited April 27, 2023 by StringJunky

[studiot]

Propeller (impellor) type pumps work by generating a pressure difference between inlet and outlet.
They are limited to the height of a standing column of the fluid when pumping against gravity (about 10 metres for water)
A greater pressure difference would actually push the pumped material backwards.

This is a lot less than 60m

A positive displacement pump like a piston pump works  by being one way.

A piston pushes the pumped material in one direction (and can be pushed with as much force as necessary) and blocks the material from returning or going the other way.

(Your gas meter is another positive displacement mechanism so that it can accurately record  flow)

 

On the other hand Nature achieves this displacement by sheer brute force, dumping large quantities of material with sufficient kinetic energy to create the swirling and upwelling. This could be melting ice in the right season or as I mentioned we have now discovered it could be submarine landslides down the continental slope.

 

8 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Yes, we are really just interested in raising the solutes to the more biotic upper layer

 

The sediment in the water is insoluble so in in suspension.

That was why it was a sediment in the first place.

 

I will grant there is the so called halocline, which is about solutes, but there is already no shortage of these at sea level since entropy works to try to homogenise bodies of solution.

[StringJunky]

41 minutes ago, studiot said:

I will grant there is the so called halocline, which is about solutes, but there is already no shortage of these at sea level since entropy works to try to homogenise bodies of solution.

It probably doesn't get sufficient  homogenization from top to bottom because of thermoclines, which are endemic in warmer waters. I think this is one of the issues: deep water is stratifying as the upper layers get warmer, restricting upwelling.

Edited April 27, 2023 by StringJunky

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

Propeller (impellor) type pumps work by generating a pressure difference between inlet and outlet.
They are limited to the height of a standing column of the fluid when pumping against gravity (about 10 metres for water)
A greater pressure difference would actually push the pumped material backwards.

I just can't follow your reasoning there. In the proposed system, there is already a huge pressure difference between inlet and outlet, just by virtue of the inlet being at the bottom of an ocean. What you are asking the pump to do is overcome the friction in the tube, not the weight of water in the tube.

For example, at depth 3,000 metres, the pressure is approximately 302 bar. At the surface, it's about 1 bar. So in the tube with no pumping, there is a pressure difference from bottom to top of about 300 bar. It doesn't shoot water out of the top end, because it's perfectly balanced by the weight of the column of water. 

So when you start your pump, you're not working against the weight of the water, that's in balance. You're working against the friction in the tube. Does that help? 

 

[Ken Fabian]

9 hours ago, mistermack said:

" The ocean acts as a “carbon sink” and absorbs about 31% of the CO2 emissions released into the atmosphere according to a study published by NOAA and international partners in Science. "

Yes, but... TheVat said it before I could -

 

6 hours ago, TheVat said:

The overwhelming proportion of ocean absorption is just the gas dissolving in water.

Yes, it is CO2 getting dissolved in ocean water. That is not sedimentation.

We need to be clear about the CO2 draw-down potential of enhanced ocean overturning. It won't work.

Don't waste resources on it - or on any schemes to take the CO2 back out of the atmosphere after instead of actually reducing fossil fuel emissions; we need to lose the get out of global warming whilst still burning fossil fuels schemes/scams and build more wind, solar, hydro, geothermal, tidal, nuclear, as much as we can. There is no better use for coal than using it to make wind turbines and solar panels that will replace coal burning.

 

 

Edited April 27, 2023 by Ken Fabian

[StringJunky]

8 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

Yes, but... TheVat said it before I could -

 

Yes, it is CO2 getting dissolved in ocean water. That is not sedimentation.

We need to be clear about the CO2 draw-down potential, that it won't work.

The CO2 drawdown is not a problem if you have sufficient photosynthetic organisms and adequate upwelled nutrients to use the carbon dioxide as it is adsorbed. The proposed idea needs the drawdown to work... it's an integral part of the process. The problem is the lack of nutrients in the photosynthetic layer of the ocean to deal with the carbon dioxide. When the oceans get too warm, the thermoclines appear.

Edited April 27, 2023 by StringJunky

[mistermack]

6 hours ago, TheVat said:

Still needs evidence that this would absorb more than a miniscule fraction of CO2 emission.  The overwhelming proportion of ocean absorption is just the gas dissolving in water.  And waters are warming, which would decrease their capacity to hold dissolved gas. 

You seem to be having it both ways. The gas is dissolving in water but the water is losing holding capacity. I would point out that yes, with higher CO2 levels in the air, the oceans will take more into solution. But only up to a point, when equilibrium is reached. Of course, if the atmosphere concentration keeps on rising, then the amount in solution will keep on rising. 

That's rather the point of the exercise. Take some of it permanently out of solution. It would mitigate rising acidity, and in the present situation, the carbon has nowhere else to go anyway. A little bit more natural weathering of rock, but other than that, the extra carbon we are producing now is going to be still there in 100, 200, 300 years. 

[Ken Fabian]

9 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

The CO2 drawdown is not a problem if you have sufficient photosynthetic organisms and adequate upwelled nutrients to use the carbon dioxide as it is adsorbed. The proposed idea needs the drawdown to work... it's an integral part of the process.

It is the very low rates of sedimentation of the remains of those organisms that is the issue. It was an issue with ocean fertilisation experiments; they made plankton blooms and marine life took advantage, but very little ended up as sediments.

Edited April 27, 2023 by Ken Fabian
typo

[StringJunky]

2 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

It is the very low rates sedimentation of the remains of those organisms that is the issue. It was an issue with ocean fertilisation experiments; they made plankton blooms and marine life took advantage, but very little ended up as sediments.

Right. Filling that gap in the cycle is the issue. Don't forget those plankton bloooms produced oxygen and rainmaking sulphur componds. Green water is what we are after, not abiotic blue... as pretty as it may be.

[mistermack]

Maybe you could do some research on what organisms fix most carbon, and seed the blooms with the most desirable ones. Some of that stuff reproduces very quickly so seeding thinly might have a big effect. 

Or you could possibly have vast floating mussel and oyster farms, giving high value product and lots of solid shells.

[Ken Fabian]

2 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Filling that gap in the cycle is the issue.

Artificially increasing the total global marine carbon sedimentation rates by several hundred-fold? The scales needed are off the scale. As a thought experiment people can discuss it but... seriously?

 

3 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Maybe you could do some research on what organisms fix most carbon, and seed the blooms with the most desirable ones. Some of that stuff reproduces very quickly so seeding thinly might have a big effect. 

Or you could possibly have vast floating mussel and oyster farms, giving high value product and lots of solid shells.

The scales needed are off the scale - and it will be a marine biology disaster to seed oceans that way. And it doesn't answer how the sedimentation rate can be amplified. Greatly increase marine biomass then have big die-backs? That somehow don't release CO2 and methane in big ways? No, it won't work. Move on.

Turn atmospheric CO2 into oyster shells? 40 billion tonnes per year of CO2 is a LOT of oyster shells. About 6 million tons per year of oysters (flesh) are produced so maybe 3 times that of shell? We are up to thousand-fold increases in marine bio-productivity now.

It won't work. Move on.

[StringJunky]

19 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

No, it won't work. Move on.

Turn atmospheric CO2 into oyster shells? 40 billion tonnes per year of CO2 is a LOT of oyster shells. About 6 million tons per year of oysters (flesh) are produced so maybe 3 times that of shell? We are up to thousand-fold increases in marine bio-productivity now.

It won't work. Move on.

Your criticisms are misplaced because there isn't a single solution we are gunning for, so you are just puttintg up irrelevant numbers. The co2 burden has to be distributed between several/many solutions and behavioural changes on our part. 

Your dismissive certainty is annoying and not conducive to developing this conversation. Ultimately, I think it's about understanding entropy direction in natural processes and see where we can nudge it locally to have a broader, beneficial systemic effect.

Edited April 27, 2023 by StringJunky

[CharonY]

Not sure whether that has been addressed, but circulation on a large scale has more effects on carbon sequestration than biological effects. Studies have shown that the decline of CO2 uptake by oceans in the 90s was driven by increased circulation of ocean water to the surface bringing carbon rich deep waters to the surface and thereby decreasing the difference between the CO2 in the atmosphere and the ocean surface. The reduction in this differential resulted in less CO2 being taken up.

Conversely, around 2000 a slowdown in upper ocean circulation happened, which reduced the upwelling of deep waters, resulting in an increase of carbon sequestration. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21068

Now, if biological processes (specifically nutrient availability) were the drivers, we would expect the inverse trend in carbon sequestration as observed. If anything, direct fertilization (as has been tried in the past) is likely more efficient than trying to trying to replicate the oceanic circulations (though that has their own problems).

That being said, it seems that folks have actually run pilot studies on it: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-015-5195-2

Especially regarding long-term effects, efficiency and environmental disturbance seem to be major unknowns. But skimming some of the studies it might result in net carbon sequestrations in some areas, and no effects in others. Most are too short term and probably not enough circulation to drive the above mentioned oceanic carbon sequestration effect.

I have not seen anything suggesting vast superiority to terrestrial carbon sequestration attempts, though.

 

Edit: crossedited with SJ

[StringJunky]

9 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Not sure whether that has been addressed, but circulation on a large scale has more effects on carbon sequestration than biological effects. Studies have shown that the decline of CO2 uptake by oceans in the 90s was driven by increased circulation of ocean water to the surface bringing carbon rich deep waters to the surface and thereby decreasing the difference between the CO2 in the atmosphere and the ocean surface. The reduction in this differential resulted in less CO2 being taken up.

Conversely, around 2000 a slowdown in upper ocean circulation happened, which reduced the upwelling of deep waters, resulting in an increase of carbon sequestration. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21068

Now, if biological processes (specifically nutrient availability) were the drivers, we would expect the inverse trend in carbon sequestration as observed. If anything, direct fertilization (as has been tried in the past) is likely more efficient than trying to trying to replicate the oceanic circulations (though that has their own problems).

 

 

 

Circulation is obviously important because the more biotic cold oceans probably supply the warm oceans to some degree.

Edited April 27, 2023 by StringJunky

[Ken Fabian]

1 hour ago, StringJunky said:

Your criticisms are misplaced because there isn't a single solution we are gunning for, so you are just puttintg up irrelevant numbers.

It is the "solution" under discussion.

Irrelevant numbers? Natural carbon sedimentation being so small compared to emissions  - 1/930th by the numbers in the diagram I posted - seems relevant to me. The numbers do matter and me pointing them out and suggesting with high confidence that makes this a non-solution should not irritate you. Blame the numbers.

[StringJunky]

20 minutes ago, Ken Fabian said:

It is the "solution" under discussion.

Irrelevant numbers? Natural carbon sedimentation being so small compared to emissions  - 1/930th by the numbers in the diagram I posted - seems relevant to me. The numbers do matter and me pointing them out and suggesting with high confidence that makes this a non-solution should not irritate you. Blame the numbers.

Even so, we are not suggesting it is the only solution. Even if it is the one under discussion, it is plainly obvious that a multi-pronged approach is required. You using numbers as if that is the only solution to be used. 

Edited April 28, 2023 by StringJunky

[TheVat]

Hopefully this

https://www.climatechangenews.com/2012/01/24/warming-oceans-face-co2-tipping-point/#:~:text=The world's oceans will absorb,cause surface temperatures to rise.

will help underscore the necessity of focus on land emissions reduction.  And fertilization proposals, like iron fertilization, are pretty controversial given the level of ecosystem tampering involved as well as dubious effectiveness and ROI....

https://www.nature.com/articles/545393a

 

 

 

 

 

[mistermack]

11 hours ago, Ken Fabian said:

It is the very low rates of sedimentation of the remains of those organisms that is the issue. It was an issue with ocean fertilisation experiments; they made plankton blooms and marine life took advantage, but very little ended up as sediments.

It would help if you posted a link to verify your claim, rather than a diagram.

And the point of this suggestion right from the start, is that it can be justified on two counts, and could very well be self financing. Generating a whole new industry is not something to be scoffed at, and producing high quality food in large quantities is surely worth investigating. 

Even if it never fixed a gram of carbon, it could still make a difference to the planet. Having Chinese, Norwegian and Korean factory ships hoovering up Krill in the Antarctic should tell you something about the state of fishing on the planet. Producing a whole new set of fisheries around the world would feed millions, and take the pressure off wild stocks. 

[iNow]

I'm reminded of the day I took my kids to the beach. The vast ocean crashing her waves before us, the bright sun shining above, and my youngest suggested we could make the beach larger / the ocean smaller by slapping at the waves with their mini-sand shovel and plastic pail. 

Next, we'll be jumping high to fix problems with orbiting satellites using our pogo stick! 

Nolege is power!

[mistermack]

Somebody once had the crazy idea of drilling for oil in 4,000 feet of water !! And the oil was another 35,000 feet down !!! 

They should get him some treatment, poor soul.  .  .  . 

I'm glad you like my tat. 🙂

[CharonY]

15 hours ago, TheVat said:

will help underscore the necessity of focus on land emissions reduction.  And fertilization proposals, like iron fertilization, are pretty controversial given the level of ecosystem tampering involved as well as dubious effectiveness and ROI....

That is a general issue with these types of geoengineering approaches. The impact, especially long-term are often not understood and it is often rather costly to implement systems to study. So far, none of the limited studies show any game changing effects, so while research might be interesting, without evidence that the benefit outweigh the risks it is likely not going to fly.

[TheVat]

17 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Somebody once had the crazy idea of drilling for oil in 4,000 feet of water !! And the oil was another 35,000 feet down

So how did that work out for the planet's biosphere?  

[geordief]

I am from a time when "ecological  living" was considered  a virtue on it's own account

 

That we should live in harmony with our environment. 

 

When it became obvious that we no longer had the option to trash the planet I was actually  pleased.

 

If we did not have the basic decency to adopt lifestyles that were respectful of our environment  ,then we were going to be forced to do so willy nilly.

 

Should I feel ashamed that my ideals have been foisted upon  the unwilling majority?I don't know but we are where  we are.

 

As for these  and other megalomaniac  geoforming ideas,I get that they are  now part of the panic process  but  they are better suited to Musk's motley  suicidal  crew of Martian explorers(we are better rid of them)

[CharonY]

I think many (but not all) carbon capture ideas are a bit rooted in a similar thinking that also was shown full force during the pandemic. Folks prefer to do something after it is broken, even trying out stuff that was shown not to work (e.g. ivermectin) rather than doing something that prevents it in the first place and is known to work. 

[mistermack]

2 hours ago, geordief said:

As for these  and other megalomaniac  geoforming ideas,I get that they are  now part of the panic process  but  they are better suited to Musk's motley  suicidal  crew of Martian explorers(we are better rid of them)

What, like farming, where your food comes from? 

2 hours ago, TheVat said:

So how did that work out for the planet's biosphere?

Ok so far.   🙂

Edited April 28, 2023 by mistermack