Can we add ozone to the ozone layer?

[barfbag]

@ John C,

 

How is that wording contesting it. Repair by 2070 is likely not within my lifetime. You think that is so great we can stop talking about it?

 

Whatever... (sigh)

 

NOTE: I do not care an iota about Ozone. I did not enter this thread until JohnC said "Why are we still discussing this?" as if discussing things was evil. This not only indicates he feels his opinion is the only one relevant, but shuts out possible ideas from a young Tesla type genius of our time.

 

My entire entry and point in this thread is that discussion should not become criminal just because someone thinks they know it all.

 

And nobody was claiming there's only one solution. I just pointed out that making ozone isn't a solution, because it's impractical and the time, money and effort would be better spent elsewhere.

 

 

No. At the bottom of post 11 you said , "Why are you still discussing this?"

 

I would tend to agree with the statement you have in quotes, but not the idea that your thoughts are superior or should be the end of discussion. You have no idea what interesting ideas might come up (but you think you do apparently).

 

nobody was claiming there's only one solution

 

 

then why try and halt discussion? Don't you want to hear if anybody else can think of something? Or do you really feel that way?

Edited June 16, 2014 by barfbag

[John Cuthber]

It's contesting the fact that the hole is repairing itself because you said it in rebuttal of my observation that the hole is repairing itself.

 

Re.

"This not only indicates he feels his opinion is the only one relevant,"

The first and second laws of thermodynamics are not my "opinion".

"but shuts out possible ideas from a young Tesla type genius of our time."

Tesla would have realised that you can't get something for nothing and abandoned the idea.

 

 

Re. "My entire entry and point in this thread is that discussion should not become criminal just because someone thinks they know it all."

 

Ophiolite summed up what is "criminal" when he said

"let's rapidly reject the possibilities that are impractical by several orders of magnitude. To continue investing time and effort in considering them is not just a waste of time and effort it is - metaphorically at least - a criminal, anti-social - waste of time and effort."

 

So, why do you carry on defending such action?

[barfbag]

no comment

Edited June 16, 2014 by barfbag

[John Cuthber]

@ JohnC,

 

 

Why do you think your opinion or ophiolite's are the only ones that matter?

I don't.

I didn't.

I won't.

And, as I said The first and second laws of thermodynamics are not my "opinion".

Now that I have exposed that pointless straw man, could you explain why you are still defending the idea that we should keep on wasting time?

Why don't you accept that it's time to cut your losses?

Edited June 16, 2014 by John Cuthber

[barfbag]

Nature Magazine -

For now, the ozone hole above Antarctica shows no sign of getting any better. In 2002 and 2004 the ozone loss was less severe, but in 2006 ozone levels fell to a new record low and have since remained depressed. Most scientists don't expect the recovery to start until at least 20 years from now

 

 

@ JohnC,

 

Wow! Now you are equating freedom to discuss a topic with Thermodynamics. How do you even relate these two?

 

Nevermind that. How is the first and second law of Thermodynamics making you think nothing good can come from discussions?

 

How doe thermodynamics even relate to the ozone? I actually was planning on leaving this thread, but now I think it's getting ridiculous.

 

Your stance has been (and likely will remain) that the ONLY WAY to help the ozone repair (and it won't happen in our lifetimes) is by generating Ozone with Ozone generators at a cost of a trillion dollars.

 

Stop me when I'm wrong here. Is that not your stance.

 

Okay so maybe people here could discuss alternatives to that if rude people were not saying "Why even discuss it?".

 

I gave you a method to increase Ozone. Simply place a mirror on the ground.

 

Now you are going on about Thermodynamics.

 

Sooooo. I will give you another method to help repair the Ozone.

 

Simply encourage Global Warming will aid the Ozone... so just makesure we all contribute to GW and then maybe the Ozone will fix in our lifespan.

 

There. That is another solution that will fix the ozone. That's two so far just off the top of my head that don't require electricity.

 

Maybe discussion is warranted. I've thought of two other ways to aid the Ozone, can you?

 

@ Ophiolite,

 

John has demonstrated effectively and simply that the ideas proposed thus far for replacing the ozone are unworkable.

 

 

Thus far... But if he had his way no other ideas would ever be explored by anyone anywhere. He said, "Why even discuss it?", as if his method was the only one that could ever come to light. I've added two methods that are different and could likely find a few more if I had an interest in this topic.

Edited June 17, 2014 by barfbag

[John Cuthber]

"Wow! Now you are equating freedom to discuss a topic with Thermodynamics."

No, that's another strawman.

"How doe thermodynamics even relate to the ozone?

Well, if you don't understand that, it may explain why you are still going on about it.

 

It takes energy to convert oxygen into ozone.

There's no way round that (if you could, it would be a breach of the first law).

So there's a minimum energy needed to produce the ozone and thus there is a minimum cost.

(I pointed that out rather early in the thread)

 

And, since that energy cost is far too big for humanity to stomach, there's no way we are going to be making ozone to replace that lost from the atmosphere.

.

"

But if he had his way no other ideas would ever be explored by anyone anywhere. He said, "Why even discuss it?", as if his method was the only one that could ever come to light."

Nope, that's yet another straw man.

 

What I have said is let's not waste effort on things we know to be impossible.

Of course, it may be that you didn't realise that but, had you read and understood what had been written, not only would you have learned some science, but you might not have dragged this thread out so much.

It's not that my method is the only one (as I already said) it's that any method will take vast amounts of energy (which I already said).

Also, you have ignored the fact that I explained that the mirror will not work and the fact that I explained why.

So, once again, why are you still going on about it?

Edited June 17, 2014 by John Cuthber

[Ophiolite]

@barfbag:

Here is a recommendation. Read what is written more carefully than you do at present and you will save yourself and others a great deal of time.

@ Ophiolite,

 

How do you know what ideas are practical if you only listen to one?

That is a strawman argument. No one on this thread - certainly not John or myself - has argued that we should listen to only one idea. So, why even make this rather obvious point, on which all are in agreement?

 

I reject the concept that discussing things are wasteful.

Well bully for you. Discussion has the potential to be of immense value, but discussion has to be relevant and practical. The ideas proposed are impractical and hence irrelevant. This has been clearly demonstrated. Your inability to understand this is what is responsible for the waste in this discussion.

 

I mean; My God how can a few posts by you or others undermine science so harshly.

Any undermining of science on this thread is being carried out by yourself. You have an opportunity to learn, yet you prefer to erect strawmen, misinterpret posts and parade your ignorance as if it were a badge of honour. This is counterproductive behaviour.

Neither is telling that poster "Why are you still discussing this?" a polite or intelligent response. Rude begets rude.

(from post 11)

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83661-can-we-add-ozone-to-the-ozone-layer/?p=811115

You seem to have a fragile ego. Please stop taking things so personally. Asking the question "why are you still discussing this" when the fruitlessness of the topic has been amply demonstrated, is not unintelligent. I am also at a loss as to how it is impolite to point out an error in thinking. (Clearly you have not read many research papers, or attended scientific conferences.)

 

More to the point I did not accuse you of being rude. So once again you are defending against a position/accusation/assertion that was never made.

 

Brainstorming is a group discussion where bad ideas are not scorned. John C deliberately scorned the Opening Poster by saying "why are you still discussing this?" as if his word was final. All Hail John?

I suspect, based upon your comments that you have been engaged in very view and run even fewer brainstorming sessions. A key element in any effective brainstorming session is the explicit identification of the session as a brainstorming one and the clear exposition of the rules governing it. This was, consequently, not a brainstorming session.

 

However, even if it was, a key phase in a brainstorming session is to assess the ideas that have been put forward. Criticism is not absent from a brainstorming session, it is merely suspended for the initial phase of idea gathering. Thereafter ideas are subject to criticism.

 

The poster has every opportunity to present new evidence to support their proposal. New evidence was essential since, based on what was presented to that point, the idea had been shown to be unworkable. It is not an acceptable alternative to repeat the original idea and sound the mantra "Well it might work." This is a science forum, not the Disney Channel.

 

 

I refuse to think there is only one solution despite your advocacy.

Back to the old strawman. As the saying goes, if I valued your opinion I would be offended.

 

You also said what 75% of government spending should be allocated to this, but many industries would happily donate to show their carbon footprint/environmental good is positive, or was your word final also?

Clearly you did not understand what I was saying. I'll take responsibility for that. Here it is again:

 

We are talking about converting the vast majority of the economy towards the sole goal of producing ozone. That means we halt education, stop health care, direct 90% of power to ozone production, curtail the holiday industry, cease mining, etc. It's a frigging dumb idea. That's why John asks, why are we still discussing this.

[barfbag]

@ Ophiolite,

 

No one on this thread - certainly not John or myself - has argued that we should listen to only one idea.

 

 

Untrue, See last line of post 11. This is the ONLY reason I entered thread.

 

The ideas proposed are impractical and hence irrelevant.

 

 

 

Of course. Don't you think if there was a practical way to fix the ozone we would be doing it.

 

EDIT: I retract that because I had already put forth a practical idea in post 12.

 

Any undermining of science on this thread is being carried out by yourself. You have an opportunity to learn, yet you prefer to erect strawmen, misinterpret posts and parade your ignorance as if it were a badge of honour. This is counterproductive behaviour.

 

 

You're resorting to ad hominem attacks against my education now? Where is my poop slinger? lol.

 

Don't pick a losing argument and you won't get so mad. I could pick examples from almost every paragraph you wrote. It is amusing, and if I respected your opinion I still wouldn't care.

 

Asking the question "why are you still discussing this" when the fruitlessness of the topic has been amply demonstrated, is not unintelligent. I am also at a loss as to how it is impolite to point out an error in thinking.

 

 

English is my first language so I can safely tell you that when someone says, "Why are you still discussing this?", the likely feel that that the fruitlessness of the topic has been amply demonstrated. This occurred after ONE(1) idea, which was to have everybody generate ozone at a cost of a trillion dollars using electricity and then transported somehow (unspecified) to the required areas.

 

He basically told the OP to shut up and now you are as well.

 

You said,

Back to the old strawman. As the saying goes, if I valued your opinion I would be offended.

 

 

 

Please define your idea of a straw man argument. I find it puzzling that you could find my statement (in quote below)...

 

Me - "I refuse to think there is only one solution despite your advocacy."

 

... a straw man argument.

 

The ONLY way my argument was a straw man is if you are of the belief more than one idea was proposed. I don't see it. A straw man argument means that I am altering the argument to suit my defense. Actually this was nicely done by John C earlier in this thread (can you spot it or do I need to point to it?),

 

We are talking about converting the vast majority of the economy towards the sole goal of producing ozone. That means we halt education, stop health care, direct 90% of power to ozone production, curtail the holiday industry, cease mining, etc. It's a frigging dumb idea. That's why John asks, why are we still discussing this.

 

 

 

Again; English is my first language so let me take a stab at it. We are talking about "Can we add ozone to the ozone layer", and not converting the vast majority of the economy towards the sole goal of producing ozone. That means we halt education, stop health care, direct 90% of power to ozone production, curtail the holiday industry, cease mining, etc

 

The topic is quite clear in the title of this thread actually.

 

Yes, That is a dumb idea, do you get a lot of them?

 

Note: Now my above statement is slightly straw man (an example for you) because I infer you are misinterpreting the OP, and when I agree your idea was dumb it is slightly ad hominem (example). However only slightly because you and John seem to think that dumb idea is the only possible answer in this discussion.

 

You're straw man here is inferring I support this idea or you would not be so enthusiastic about bolding your curse words ("Friggin"? Honestly. Did you learn that from a 10 year old.).

 

Your last post alone I could dissect into mostly ad hominem and straw man attacks which have nothing to do with the OP and are totally off topic. Now i am forced to off topic in order to respond.

 

I gave two other methods to create ozone without electricity and yet you never mention them at all. That would have been the scholarly choice and not the grade school one.

 

@ John c,

 

So there's a minimum energy needed to produce the ozone and thus there is a minimum cost.

 

 

 

You are speaking of electric energy. This was your "Friggin Dumb idea" (Quoting Ophiolite) that got you so worked up.

 

I gave two solutions that require no electricity yet you ignore them in favour of what? Relating how thermodynamics is related to replenishing the ozone. Seriously?

 

had you read and understood what had been written, not only would you have learned some science,

 

 

 

I am a Soil Engineer which basically makes me a glorified driver these days, but I bet my CV is more impressive than 90% of the posters here. I do not need to be an ozone expert to know that problems often have many solutions and deserve discussion despite your complaints otherwise.

 

Placing a mirror on the ground would reflect the sunlight back into space and the remaining UV (especially if under the Ozone Hole) would split the O2 molecules and allow them to bind into O3 molecules. How can you not grasp this?

 

It does not matter which direction the sunlight/UV is coming from. Here is a diagram...

 

 

I also said Global Warming is helping fix the Ozone so any (not cfc's) use of greenhouse gasses might help fix it sooner than 2070.

 

Another solution that has been applied without electricity is the Montreal Protocol which limited chlorofluorocarbons.

 

I forgot I had put forward three ozone creation ideas, not two. In post 12 I had said,

Maybe the solution is simply to create more oxygen .(Ozone is created from dioxygen)... We could fill our oceans with Algae Farms double the size of the rainforest. This would also remove carbon from our atmosphere (as long as farms are maintained). We could solve Global Warming (if Carbon induced) and fix our Ozone in one go.

 

How much would cost to build an acre of seaweed in a floating lattice? You could ask companies to sponsor enough acres to reduce their carbon footprints in PR or political campaigns. Most of our oceans cannot support surface plants because of nutrients, so selective locations or fertilizing regimes would be required.

 

You could grow the Algae fields over fishing hotspots and help increase our cod and halibut populations. Fish farms with algae can support twice the amount of life, maybe it will help fish grow and also slow fishing a bit.

 

If a country has a drought, you could tow a few hundred thousand acres to them and they can feast on algae burgers (yum). So now we are solving world hunger with the same stone.

 

 

So I solved GW, Ozone Depletion and World Hunger since you said, "why are we still discussing this?" in post 11.

 

Tell me how my above plan wouldn't work? Funding? I already said campaign to have companies voluntarily (or force them) to have a carbon footprint of zero.

 

Any other reasons why my last idea does not increase global Oxygen levels (also Ozone (two birds)), decrease Carbon in our atmosphere (Global Warming is often attributed to Carbon (three birds)), and also solve world hunger as towing a few hundred acres of yummy algae (That is smart talk for seaweed) to countries suffering droughts (World Hunger (Four birds same stone)).

 

So while you guys just want to argue for the sake of it I have been contributing to the thread and solving the problems.

 

Admit it.. I solved GW, Ozone Depletion and World Hunger in one shot.

 

Now back to Ophiolite,

 

but discussion has to be relevant and practical. The ideas proposed are impractical and hence irrelevant. This has been clearly demonstrated. Your inability to understand this is what is responsible for the waste in this discussion.

 

 

I proposed the above idea long ago in post 12. How is that impractical? Funding will be your only choice of answer here because planting more trees is my basic proposal. Do you know 80% of our Oxygen comes from Algae already?

 

I am an avid sailor and would like to retire on the oceans sailing from continent to continent as I have strong archeological interests, and I can tell you that even in patches of the ocean with little nutrients it is common to see seaweed attaching itself to the floating refuse. The concept of a seaweed rainforest (alluding to size of it and Oxygen benefits) I am proposing here would encompass long lasting floats attached with seaweed supporting connections likely in triangular shapes when attached.

 

So Ophiolite,

 

I just solved GW, Ozone Depletion and World Hunger.... You can go all ad hominem on my butt now (referring to his/her (idk) last post which was mostly ad hominem).

 

What have you solved?

 

NOTE: I might start a thread with that idea so I may quote your responses to it. You know my idea would work, but I am saying that whatever your stance is it might be reviewed by many others. In other words try to reply intelligently and without ad hominem or straw man attacks. I honestly am expecting a combination of both based on previous posts. Maybe we can discuss Thermodynamics some more (LMAO).

Edited June 17, 2014 by barfbag

[Ophiolite]

Wow!

 

And top of it all, you have a great CV. I'm impressed and when I've stopped laughing I'll respond to the salient points in my first language.

 

P.S. the negative rep is not from me. Such actions are, in my view, unnecessary here.

@John Cuthbert

 

It seems abundantly clear to me that on post #11, where you say "Why are you still even thinking about this" that you are referring specifically to the proposal that Sensei had made for issuing CW generators, or their equivalent.

 

Could you confirm this is the case, thus demonstrating that barfbag misunderstood your comments in his native language,

 

or, correct me, explaining that you meant there was no point in discussing any potential solutions to the ozone problem. In the latter case I shall issue barfbag with an unreserved apology on this point.

[barfbag]

@ Ophiolite,

 

I am new here. I do not know what negative votes implies aside from a popularity contest, but as far as I'm concerned it simply means people have read it which makes me happy.

 

Odd though. I solved Ozone Depletion problem, Global Warming, and Fed starving children with my Algae Farm Idea in that post, yet some think that is a bad thing? If they disagree they should say something intelligent (if capable) instead of hiding behind a voting system.

 

A CV is basically a Resume. You said you would reveal your first language after, but you never did.

 

 

I happily accept insults from someone whose first thoughts of solving this problem were as follows.

FROM POST # 2

 

How are you going to generate the volumes of ozone required?

 

How are you going to pay for the equipment and energy required to generate the ozone?

 

And, especially, how are you going to get it into the upper atmosphere?

 

 

Perhaps it was you JohnC was admonishing for citing such a ridiculous concept and maybe he was not poo-pooing the entire subject.

 

This is EXACTLY the type of straw man argument (since you brought it up) that I was expecting. You are trying to change the argument by implying I did not understand JohnC's Grammar or intended meaning.

 

However just before he said that he also said,

Post # 4

Just think how much effort mankind has put into digging coal or drilling for oil.

You would need something similar to make significant amounts of ozone.

And, of course, the energy needed to make the ozone would mean that we would produce even more CO2 and damage the atmosphere even more than we already have..

 

Which blatantly describes his disgust with the entire topic.

 

My tree planting (Algae) solution was a little more elegant than your notion (from post 2) of delivering Ozone from the ground via space shuttle or balloons or whatever your intended delivery method was, but that's just the way I roll.

 

It is obvious JohnC was talking about all possible methods in above statement, and if you think of my planting trees (algae) solution then you will also see it as wrong. The energy used to plant trees (algae farms) would likely not damage the environment an insane amount.

 

@ Ophiolite still,

 

Also.. He continued his argument for many posts after I brought up discussion is relevant and made comments like this,

The depletion has stopped and there's a slight (as yet) upwards trend.

 

 

Which is wrong actually. The depletion kind of stops every year and picks up again in the spring, but the ozone has not stopped depleting itself. The good news is that the harmful cfc's are not as abundant now so we are expecting the ozone will someday start repairing itself (20 years).

 

@ Ophiolite still,

 

or how about when he says this,

OK, should we discuss shouting at clouds as a way to repair the ozone layer?

 

 

which I cannot make any sense of. He clearly thinks the topic is garbage and that no solution can ever be found even though I found one. I listed four methods to create ozone (Plant Algae, Drop a mirror, Limit use of CFC's like Montreal Accord, or encourage GW) since then that do not require shouting (at clouds (?) or otherwise).

 

@ Ophiolite still,

 

Oh, I have a good one for you...

why would we carry on talking about something else which is never going to work? [underline of ELSE added for emphasis]

 

 

There goes your Straw Man (Poof). Try to tell me how that statement from post 17 can be misinterpreted to mean discussion on this topic is okay, just not your idea of delivering man made ozone to the Stratosphere.

 

He also said,

There's no way to reduce the cost of producing ozone below the cost of producing the energy to produce that ozone. And that energy cost is of roughly the same order as the whole world's electricity bill.

 

 

By increasing O2 in our atmosphere we increase the amount of it affected by UV and thus create more O3 (Ozone) molecules. This means that planting trees or algae farms will produce ozone. The cost would be higher at the beginning, but if a tree lives for a hundred years then it becomes more cost effective. Maybe planting trees/algae will cost the same as the worlds electric bill, but I think he is alluding to the trillion dollar man made ozone kick he was on.

 

He also said,

So, as you say "It is the easiest thing in the world to think of reasons you can't do something."
yes, and sometimes that's the point at which you realise you should focus on something else.

 

 

And yet I solved the problem already before the end of the second page of this thread. Brilliant idea to stop discussing.

 

He also said,

"So is your ozone recipe the same as everyone's?"

No, but the energy required by that recipe is.

That's called the conservation of energy.

 

 

Okay.. But it sounds as if he is expecting the energy to come from our energy grid, and I gave three (3) methods of creating ozone that will require no electricity.

 

He said,

if you had spent time trying to solve the energy shortage, rather than pointlessly ignoring the conservation of energy as it applies to the cost of ozone production, you might have solved it and the world would be a better place.

 

 

How do my three (3) solutions have anything to do with violating energy principles. This is also Straw Man since you like to use that term so much. He is inferring that any solution must meet his criteria. He is changing the argument to make it seem like thermodynamics will prevent any solutions, and yet I found one anyways.

 

You said (ophiolite),

But let's rapidly reject the possibilities that are impractical by several orders of magnitude. To continue investing time and effort in considering them is not just a waste of time and effort it is - metaphorically at least - a criminal, anti-social - waste of time and effort.

 

 

 

I agree. Was this supposed to infer I am supporting your space shuttle or whatever delivery system you were discussing in post two?

It was you whose first thought on the matter was to use ozone machines and some sort of delivery system to space. I NEVER supported that notion as viable. By inferring I was supporting ANY methods never mind your one is also Straw man. You set up a Straw Man that is supporting ridiculous notions and then you knock it down.

 

I am beginning to see where you learned about Straw Man attacks. A lot of what you write is ad hominem or Straw Man (at least in this thread).

 

@ Ophiolite still,

 

Since you enjoy laughing, here is another chuckle for you,

JohnC said,

And nobody was claiming there's only one solution. I just pointed out that making ozone isn't a solution, because it's impractical and the time, money and effort would be better spent elsewhere.

 

 

This came in post 25. It is like a noticeable change in stance from ... "why would we carry on talking about something else which is never going to work? [underline of ELSE added for emphasis]

 

He had said, "Nobody is claiming there is only solution", yet he said "Why would we carry on talking about something else" in an earlier post. This is backpedaling. Both statements cannot be true.

 

This sets up the nonsense spewed in post 31. I won't even bother to explain. It's too painful to re-read such shallow thinking.

 

Post 27,

Tesla would have realised that you can't get something for nothing and abandoned the idea.

 

 

I doubt Tesla would have given up on the first page of a thread, give the man his due.

 

You said,

No one on this thread - certainly not John or myself - has argued that we should listen to only one idea.

 

 

Yet in actuality JohnC said "why would we carry on talking about something else". How can you entertain several ideas without discussing something ELSE.

 

Now..

 

@ Opholite still,

 

You have yet to show me how I have used Straw Man arguments. I showed you that you use them frequently. You accused me of doing so, but I don't see it. Please explain? (IF YOU CAN...)

 

will you admit,

Would you confirm this is the case, thus demonstrating that barfbag misunderstood your comments in his native language,

 

 

Will you admit that it is you that has misunderstood now that you have read so many qualifying statements? I doubt you are capable of admitting you are wrong here actually, but at least I know the reality.

 

You never beat up on my Algae Farm idea to save the planet. Does this mean you cannot think of anything wrong with it, or is it just in your nature to mainly make off topic posts that are filled with Straw man ad hominem attacks.

 

If this is a debate I declare myself the winner. The only way you could win (you can't) is to attack my Algae Farm Idea until it is dead and gone, and I would still have insisted that discussing something else, is conducive to finding solutions.

 

I hope this clears up JohnC's statement for you in post 11.

 

or, correct me, explaining that you meant there was no point in discussing any potential solutions to the ozone problem. In the latter case I shall issue barfbag with an unreserved apology on this point.

 

 

Here is some algebra...

no point in discussing any potential solutions = why would we carry on talking about something else

 

However if you cannot see the similarities I will not expect that (see quote below)...

 

In the latter case I shall issue barfbag with an unreserved apology on this point.

 

 

So do I get an unreserved apology? Somehow I don't think so.

 

I can see the similarities though. I guess that is enough for me. Don't kill yourself with apologies.

Edited June 17, 2014 by barfbag

[CharonY]

Let us discuss algae farms then. And I apologize for not being a native speaker. First, there is a balance of oxygen and ozone in the ozone layer. How much increase in oxygen would it require to noticeably shift the balance? Keeping in mind that the relevant altitudes there is much less oxygen to begin with. How much oxygen increase would be needed and how would that impact life on ground level?

 

How much output does a marine algae farm require and how much would we need to achieve this? What are the costs? Is it sustainable even in theory?

[barfbag]

@ Charony,

 

Wow! You're talking to a guy who sends all his samples to a lab for analysis, and has no need to even own a calculator these days.
I have one on my desk, but I'm making a point.

 

Every plant that grows is directly removing the carbon from our environment. As long as the carbon remains in plant form it is not causing GW. How many trees/Algae would we need to remove the carbon that 500 million+ cars/trucks are creating on a daily basis would be extreme.

 

I've heard that planting about 15 trees a year (providing they reach maturity) would rid one person of their carbon imprint, however the problems there are that once the trees die they will release the carbon right back into the environment. The Algae farms would be a great start to help curb Global Warming (if it's carbon induced), but the farms would need to be maintained or increased in size as years pass. Simply letting it fall into ruin would release all the old carbon back to the previous levels.

 

What are the costs? I suppose you would need to create floats attached to about 10 feet of plastic wire and then hire a few villages (in countries of your choice) to seed the wire with algae and push it out into the oceans until they have amassed a few hundred acres here and there. They could be towed to nutrient rich areas or of choice. Wave power could easily run a few pumps to bring in nutrients if you were forced to plant in poor conditions.

 

The rainforest is over a billion acres so the project would take years to match its size, but keep in mind you would only be planting enough to encourage growth on that area of the lattice.

 

The costs. What are the costs in doing nothing to solve Global Warming or fix the Ozone? How many lives is it acceptable to lose?

 

I had proposed that funding come from companies willing to offset their carbon footprints, but in reality politics would need to be involved and that means many will die before this idea would be implemented. If you voted for someone who told you you had to pay for seaweed you'd kick him out of office (truth).

 

Maybe it could start out as volunteer efforts at one location and then spread the format to other countries. Have contests to see who can build the biggest lattice's.

 

Algae needs food so mostly lives near shorelines, and it currently produces about 80% of our oxygen.

 

I could not tell you how much oxygen the rainforest outputs without looking it up and I'm not that interested at the moment. I am not sure and you are asking to determine the density of a gasses. You need the pressure, molar mass and absolute temperature to calculate in many locals.

 

Some of the best computers around require many months to calculate ozone predictions so we likely won't get too far in a simple discussion thread.

 

Is it sustainable even in theory?

 

 

Yes. Algae Farms have been created and harvested for biofuel purposes and exploring its potential. Fish Farms also can double their yield with heavy algae.

 

Now THE OZONE....

 

I am clever enough to realize that if I thought of it perhaps it has already been discussed. So I googled "Oxygen Ozone Repair" and found this paper.

http://stephaz.webs.com/ozoneholerecovery.htm

 

I am not vouching for it, but it does contain some of the math involved. It is also an idea not yet considered on these pages and is nicer than the idea of delivering ozone itself which would be problematic at best.

 

This is not as elegant as my idea though because my idea would also slow Global Warming (in theory).

 

Thank you for being on topic and contributing to the discussion. It is a welcome change.

[CharonY]

Well seeing that you proposed an approach I thought it was only fair to ask for numbers and mechanisms. Without those ideas have little if any merit.

I will ignore the CO2 part for now as it was not part of the main topic. Going back to the link you provided, it discusses direct injection of O2, which is a completely different approach to rising O2 levels. The latter has massive consequences that one should think about (even before feasibility is being touched). One issue is that just adding more plants is not going to automatically raise oxygen levels. Ever wondered why the oxygen levels have remained fairly constant since ~500 millions ago despite significant changes in vegetation ?

The reason is that the oxygen-carbon cycle has feedback controls that would sink quite a bit of surplus oxygen. So in order to increase you would have to outproduce these sinks and feedback loops. Based on this, it is unlikely that an area the size of the rain forest is sufficient for that (estimates put them at about 10% of total oxygen production, but it consumes almost the same amount). But let us ignore even that for a moment.

 

That leaves us with massive algae farms. Note that oceans are typically very poor in nutrients, which will make it more costly than inland algae ponds that have a more restricted volume and are easier to fertilize. And ongoing research indicates that it is massively harder to sustain than using inland sites.

Not that your ideas with wires is absolutely worthless as the high-yield producers are not seaweed (as you may think) but phytoplankton (i.e. bacteria). They laugh at your wires and get diluted into the ocean. In fact, except for having more space there is no merit whatsoever to use the open ocean as anything you dump in there to promote algae growth would be massively diluted.

 

But let us assume that for some reasons we manage to do it at the same cost for algae ponds (which is very unlikely).

The Amazon basin has roughly 1E9 acres and estimates I have seen place costs t roughly 20k per acre. So the investment would be in the order of 2E13 (20 trillions) $. Considering that it would be roughly a fourth of the gross world product, I will posit that it is not a feasible solution. Especially as it is not clear whether it will change the oxygen in the atmosphere at all (and again, not even addressing whether it would be a good thing).

Edited June 17, 2014 by CharonY

[Acme]

...

I've heard that planting about 15 trees a year (providing they reach maturity) would rid one person of their carbon imprint, however the problems there are that once the trees die they will release the carbon right back into the environment. ...

The dead trees can be converted to bio-char via pyrolysis. The bio-char is then disturbed in/on the soil and the carbon will remain bound for centuries.

[barfbag]

Edit: @ Acme,

 

Yes I have heard of this before. Thanks for input. Burying might also be feasible on its own if it is deep enough.

http://cmi.princeton.edu/resources/pdfs/bury_globalwarming.pdf

 

Thanks.

 

@ Charony,

 

The CO2 part of it actually is pretty huge if it is a part cause of Global Warming. There is no other way of removing it from the atmosphere that I know of, unless as Acme suggests we transform to Bio-Charcoal. If we harvested a hundred thousand acres of seaweed and buried it deep in the earth then it would be removed from the system a lot more permanently.

 

So the alternative is do nothing?

 

I had mentioned the oceans were poor in nutrients, but was trying to make the idea more feasible in an age where land prices are fairly high. The nutrients may not like plastic wires, but the plastic wires would soon enough be buried in thick plant life as long as they are being well fed. When I say seed the wires I meant with other mostly grown Algae, not actual seeds. There are already many farms out there with established seeding protocols and studies. I do not need to invent the mechanisms myself.

 

This idea was conceived in rebuttal of the notion that space shuttle delivery was the only way to deliver unstable CO3 into our atmosphere, and it seems like you are just looking to poke holes in the concept as some figures seem exaggerated. With supplies and an area to work I bet I could easily seed an acres worth of ocean lattice in a 40 hour work week, and I would not ask for $20k/week salary. A football field is more than an acre in size.

 

Trivia:During the Middle Ages, an acre was the amount of land that could be ploughed in one day with a yoke of oxen and measured by one chain in width (22 yards), and one furlong, or 10 chains in length (220 yards), yielding 4840 square yards.

(wikipedia)

That is per day.............. but let's say a week is fair for our slow workers...

 

 

If one person could seed an acre per week and they were not volunteer and was working for $20/hr. Then the cost for a billion acres would cost 20 Billion in labour. Your figure of 20 trillion is much higher. Come on. An acre a week my kid could do. That is also if each worker were paid $20/hr. That may be a minimum wage in our countries but work could be done in other countries also.

 

What about the millions of people who live on welfare in ocean states. This could also reduce unemployment.

 

An average nuclear reactor costs at least $10 billion, An average nuclear power plant will cost at least $30 billion. Even if my simple cost analysis here were off tenfold that is still removing a billion acres of plant carbon from our atmosphere for 200 Billion (10 X my guess).

http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2010/05/10/philippines-government-to-develop-5-million-250-acre-seaweed-ethanol-aquafarm/

In the Philippines, the Philippines Star is reporting that the national government will develop a $5 million, 250 acre, seaweed-based ethanol plant and aquafarm cluster[NOTE: This price include ethanol plant]. The aquafarms will be located in Aurora, Isabela, Quirino and Boholat and will utilize a South Korean ethanol extraction technology developed at the Korean Institute for Industrial Technology.

Sen. Edgardo Angara, speaking with the Star, said that seaweed grows faster than terrestrial crops, has no lignin, absorbs more airborne carbon, requires no pretreatment, and is suited at the Aurora site for up to six harvests per year. Total fuel capacity of the project has not been disclosed, but the Philippine seaweed industry as a whole realizes 50,000 metric tons of harvested seaweed and generates $122 million per year.

 

 

So in the Philippines they do use inland growing techniques at a higher price, but sell it off as fuel. Now we are helping to fuel the planet and could a) bury the waste b) just sell enough to finance the fields. This facility can harvest 1500 acres per year

 

 

 

Now this part,

 

One issue is that just adding more plants is not going to automatically raise oxygen levels. Ever wondered why the oxygen levels have remained fairly constant since ~500 millions ago despite significant changes in vegetation ? The reason is that the oxygen-carbon cycle has feedback controls that would sink quite a bit of surplus oxygen. So in order to increase you would have to outproduce these sinks and feedback loops.

 

 

This part I am not that familiar with. I understand nature has huge oxygen sinks like the ocean, but I'm interested in any papers on this because I'm guessing this part of your post was not the only one free from exaggeration. Going to have to tell all them boy scouts that planting trees is pointless.

 

I am under the belief sinks are storing Oxygen. How does it deplete? I do not understand your view and would like to know more. Please link to a paper on this.

 

And ongoing research indicates that it is massively harder to sustain than using inland sites.

 

 

This should be obvious to anyone.

 

But you gave me an idea.

 

You could have a giant nursery that grew just algae possibly in some type of floating conveyor system, where they started small at one end and and when they reached maturity by the other end you could drop it in a big hole and cover it with enough earth to contain the compost. This would not aid the Ozone, but would directly remove carbon from our system.

 

My idea was also rough... Do we really need to keep the plants alive for years, or do we bury them upon maturity? I think this would depend upon locations and available nutrient land.

 

Ocean harvesting would also greatly increase fish populations and would be a welcome addition to the Grand banks etc.

 

The idea of this costing 20 Trillion dollars though seems a bit much. However mankind is looking at Global Warming which threatens future generations. I have three kids and have honestly thought about filling a shelter with enough food preserves that should a famine hit North America in their lifetimes (They are all under 20) they would be able to feed themselves and their families. Perhaps even have the facilities to farm meal worms or ants as an emergency food source in there.

 

Here is a quick overview from Wikipedia..

 

 

Maybe Trillions of dollars (if your huge estimates are correct) would seem to have been worthwhile in time. Not only will Droughts occur, but also humans will continue to multiply like rabbits ( I helped by having three kids... Do your part).

 

So the choices according to the census here (not you acme, your suggestion was contributory) is it is better to be inactive than be proactive. People die, so let them die. Nice.

 

Here is a fun link....

http://www.scmp.com/news/china/article/1284156/cause-qingdaos-green-tide-algae-mystery

Edited June 17, 2014 by barfbag

[CharonY]

 

I had mentioned the oceans were poor in nutrients, but was trying to make the idea more feasible in an age where land prices are fairly high. The nutrients may not like plastic wires, but the plastic wires would soon enough be buried in thick plant life as long as they are being well fed. When I say seed the wires I meant with other mostly grown Algae, not actual seeds.

 

This makes no sense whatsoever. Phytoplankton is roughly 1 micron in size how is that magically turn into an enclosed system that can be sustainably fed? If you mean actual algae, the output will be much lower and the area would increase significantly.

 

I also have no idea how plowing and plot has anything to do with the concept of algae farms. The time and cost involved are massively different and are based on well known concepts that are partially realized in an effort to create biofuels and wastewater plants, for example. Not informing yourself about this concept and instead try to wave it away with phrase such as:

 

 

An acre a week my kid could do.

 

Is downright insulting, unless you can demonstrate that your kid has experience in the construction and maintenance of this algae ponds. The numbers I used are from various sources reaching back to e.g. publications from the 2002 Kyoto conference Benemann et al (Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies). A quick view over some manufacturers corroborate the estimate (some are higher, some are slightly lower, and I have taken the lower end while neglecting the total volume). As you mentioned yourself, the systems that you quoted is in the same ballpark. But again, these are all the high-yield microalgae system. It does not matter if they yield biofuel or not, you were talking about O2 production. I do not see how it would be cheaper at all if you then try to transfer this to the ocean (if anything the price would go up massively).

 

 

This part I am not that familiar with. I understand nature has huge oxygen sinks like the ocean, but I'm interested in any papers on this because I'm guessing this part of your post was not the only one free from exaggeration. Going to have to tell all them boy scouts that planting trees is pointless.

 

Read up on oxygen cycles (or grab any basic text about biogeochemical cycles). It is pretty much standard textbook knowledge. I am surprised that you have not wondered how the oxygen can be so constant despite the massive amount of deforestation humans have done. Right, boy scouts. That must be the answer. What I tried to nudge you towards (in a futile effort, it seems) is that changing the O2 level would need massive efforts.

The inventory is huge to begin with and there are large reservoirs. And then remember, that in the stratosphere the density is much lower. So the change on ground is likely substantial before it starts feeding into the ozone layer. If you propose to change the global fluxes you really should at least provide some rough estimates (no, I do not mean hand waving and I am certain that boy and girl scouts combined will have no impact whatsoever).

 

With regards to CO2, fixing it in organic matter is explored quite a bit, though algae has some issues to be used efficiently. But looking at the OP, I would say this requires a new thread for proper discussion (other terrestrial plants may be more useful in terms of actually implementation).

Now back to another question: do you think increasing oxygen concentrations has no negative consequences?

 

Throwing ideas around could be fun, but paired with ignorance (willful or otherwise) does not really convince anyone. You could as well propose a magic device to make our lives better. And heck, why am I even spending more efforts into someone's thoughts than the person who proposes it? I must be getting soft.

Edited June 18, 2014 by CharonY

[barfbag]

And heck, why am I even spending more efforts into someone's thoughts than the person who proposes it? I must be getting soft.

 

 

I don't mind, but I've written much more than you about this in this thread.

 

This makes no sense whatsoever. Phytoplankton is roughly 1 micron in size how is that magically turn into an enclosed system that can be sustainably fed? If you mean actual algae, the output will be much lower and the area would increase significantly.

 

 

Fortunately ocean seaweed farms are nothing new and you could likely buy a book on "growing Algae for dummies" that could tell you the best species and methods for farming your location.

 

I also have no idea how plowing and plot has anything to do with the concept of algae farms. The time and cost involved are massively different and are based on well known concepts that are partially realized in an effort to create biofuels and wastewater plants

 

 

I was giving you a estimate of how big an acre really is because you suggested that it would cost as much to seed an acre of seaweed as it would to replant an acre of The Rainforest. If you want to get all snippy with me I will now give my less polite response. No sane person would equate the cost of planting an acre of seaweed with replacing an acre of The Rainforest. Honestly... That's the kind of "stuff you are shoveling..

 

Remember this?

 

But let us assume that for some reasons we manage to do it at the same cost for algae ponds (which is very unlikely).

The Amazon basin has roughly 1E9 acres and estimates I have seen place costs t roughly 20k per acre. So the investment would be in the order of 2E13 (20 trillions) $. Considering that it would be roughly a fourth of the gross world product, I will posit that it is not a feasible solution.

 

 

So I was politely trying to show you that an acre is not as big as you seem to imagine. An acre is just over two thirds of a football field. The Wikipedia link showed that an ACRE IS AN ACRE BECAUSE ONE MAN (+OXEN) COULD PLOW THAT SIZE AREA IN A DAY. Yet you think it would take the same man $20k worth of supplies and labour to do the same thing. I was being polite to you.

 

 

It is certainly NOT GOING TO BE AS COSTLY AS REPLACING THE RAINFOREST. That is a really bad comparison from someone claiming they have ...

The numbers I used are from various sources reaching back to e.g. publications from the 2002 Kyoto conference Benemann et al (Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies). A quick view over some manufacturers corroborate the estimate (some are higher, some are slightly lower, and I have taken the lower end while neglecting the total volume).

 

So the Kyoto numbers told you an acre of algae is as costly as replacing an acre of rainforest?

 

Do you think anybody reading this will agree with you (even this crowd)? Is that not how you calculated $20 Trillion?

 

please... Get real

 

You also have suggested numerous times that Oxygen might hurt the planet... What the heck are you talking about. Show a single paper in history that shows excess oxygen on our planet could hurt.

 

I will stop here because I refuse to entertain your beliefs further in this post. $20 Trillion? Okay.. whatever...

 

Your notions are certainly "Out there". This idea is only rough and not great, but some of the stuff you write seems really silly.

Edited June 18, 2014 by barfbag

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Alright, I was going to wait for another mod to do this, but this is getting ridiculous.

barfbag, it seems you have serious problems remembering the forum rules. We will not tolerate insulting and personal remarks on this forum. If you wish to continue posting here, please review your attitude. Stop calling the English skills of others into question, stop insulting the intellect of other members and stop using logical fallacy and hostile language to try and get your point across.

We value positive interactions between members here and we try to enforce the rules in a way that optimises that for the purposes of good and productive discussion (we are after all, a discussion forum). With that in mind, it also bears mentioning that a discussion is not something you should enter into with the intention of 'winning'. It will do you no good whatsoever to stubbornly and aggressively try and argue a point without allowing yourself the opportunity to concede where you may be wrong.

Do not respond to this note within the thread.

Edit: I also need to add a general reminder for others posting in this thread to avoid the vaguely personal remarks being made here. Please keep in mind the distinction between attacking ideas and the person making them.

[CharonY]

According to mine and incidentally your numbers the price for an algae pond is about 20k per acre (you really should google for an image of algae farms, it does not appear that you know what they are). I gave a source that you did not bother to check. Since you mentioned the lack of calculator I multiplied it with the number you provided for the area. 1E9 x 2E4 comes to 2E13. Your imagination of how large or not is not part of of the equation here.

 

Feel free to as manufacturers of algae ponds for lower quotes. What is possible is that you confuse high-productivity microalgae with seagrass, which is much lower in productivity. Just to give some numbers here (which, no doubt will be ignored): 1ha of seaweed yields about 45 tons of dry biomass. Above ground (ignoring a substantial amount below ground) rain forest (South American) has values averaging 200-300 tons. I.e. we are talking about 5-fold difference here (quite a bit more if root systems are considered). Now the cost for a seaweed farm near the cost can be substantial, Just the longline scaffold amounts to about 30k euro per 100 sqm (see the Irish Sea fisheries board, they must be pretty insane per your definition, no?). I am pretty sure you do not need a calculator to see what is going to be more expensive. Note that these values do not even factor in operating costs.

 

Now for the oxygen part. Most people are familiar with the concept of fire. And that requires oxygen. If you look at OSHA or other safety regulations with regards to enriched oxygen environments you will find that an increase of oxygen significantly increases fire risk. For example, fire retardant protective clothes loses their ability not to burn and at 25% lose protective abilities completely. Now, local increases of oxygen are somewhat risky. Increase of the whole atmosphere, and it is fair to assume that we have to rethink a lot of exothermic processes.

 

The idea is not even close to be rough and is conveniently devoid of published information that has been around for quite a bit. Incredulity and handwaving are not acceptable

Edited June 18, 2014 by CharonY

[barfbag]

@ CHALCONY,

 

According to mine and incidentally your numbers the price for an algae pond is about 20k per acre

 

 

No. Seaweed does not cost as much as the rainforest. I gave no numbers. If you are discussing the Philippines project that is a mainland fuel factory and not nearly the same.

 

I gave a source that you did not bother to check.

 

No. I check all links provided. what are you talking about?

 

What is possible is that you confuse high-productivity microalgae with seagrass, which is much lower in productivity.

 

 

No. Everything I have said suggests the idea is Seaweed on a floating ocean lattice. Seagrass has actual roots buried in the soil. There is quite a difference.

 

 

 

 

http://myfwc.com/research/habitat/seagrasses/information/seagrass-vs-seaweed/

Seagrass can easily be confused with marine macroalgae, or seaweed, but there are many important differences between the two. While seagrasses are considered vascular plants, seaweed are protists (a taxonomic group that includes protozoans, prokaryotes, fungi, sponges, and algae). The two also differ in reproduction, structure, and the methods by which they transport nutrients and dissolved gases.

 

 

Your imagination of how large or not is not part of of the equation here.

 

 

 

How large an acre is , is necessary to calculate how fast a person could labour to seed it. Since supplies are cheap most of the seeding costs would be labour. If you stand by the notion that it would take $20 000 to seed an area less than the size of a football field I think you are mistaken.

 

You said earlier this is equal to the cost of replacing an acre of Rainforest which I think is also a gross exaggeration.

 

Now the cost for a seaweed farm near the cost can be substantial, Just the longline scaffold amounts to about 30k euro per 100 sqm (see the Irish Sea fisheries board, they must be pretty insane per your definition, no?)

 

 

 

You should provide source info if you want to invent costs. How does scaffolding have anything to do with an ocean based seaweed farm? If this Irish Sea Fisheries is indeed using it as a platform to create ocean algae then I am sure not every acre of seaweed planted would require such infrastructure.

 

Are you suggesting that a floating seaweed farm must have floating or scaffold docks on all sides. That seems a might excessive.

 

you really should google for an image of algae farms, it does not appear that you know what they are

 

 

 

I would say the same to you, especially if you are thinking of a microalgae species replete with docks all around it and I posted a picture a few posts ago..

 

Technology Description

The farming of the seaweed Kappaphycus can be a low-cost venture and a profitable one, with the right site. The technology can use family labor in either fixed off-bottom (“parasdas”) or single raft long-line culture. The more line modules, the more investment and care are needed. After tying seaweed plantlets or “seedlings” to the ropes, and the ropes staked to the sea bed by bamboo or tied to floating rafts staked to the sea bed, seaweed farming needs no more inputs. There is periodic visitation, two to three times a week, to remove undesirable algae, barnacles, and attached sediments; to re-tie loose or fallen seaweed; to tighten lines; and to check for signs of “ice-ice” disease. Seaweed culture can last 45-60 days.
- See more at: http://www.seafdec.org.ph/2011/08/page/2/#sthash.aK35tSOj.dpuf

 

 

By low cost I'm betting they mean less than $20 000 per acre.

 

Above quote is with this photo...

 

 

Notice the lack of $30 000 scaffolding in this acre of seaweed farming.

 

Here are step by step instructions like I said there would be.

 

(1) Get and select good quality seedlings; these are brittle, shiny and young branches with sharp pointed tips, no traces of grazing or whitened thallus (sign of beginning “ice-ice” disease), and 100-150 grams.

(2) For fixed off-bottom culture ~ While on land, tie seaweed seedlings 15-20 cm apart to the cultivation rope 10-20 m long with soft plastic string (commonly called “tie-tie”). Carry the ropes to the site at the lowest tide and tie both ends to stakes already placed 1-meter apart on the seabed. For single raft long-line ~ Tie seedlings as above but anchor ropes to a bamboo raft. A raft unit consists of four bamboos in a square arrangement as support with two ends tied in turn to anchor lines which are staked to the seabed. A longer raft long-line (50-70 m long) can be made;floats are regularly spaced in this instance to add buoyancy to the raft.In deeper waters (5-10 m), the hanging long-line may be best; less bamboo support is used but a good concrete block anchor is necessary.

(3) Visit the farm two to three times a week. Remove undesirable algae, barnacles, or attached sediments. Re-tie loose or fallen seaweed. Check and tighten loose rope or stake. Check for signs of diseases; totally harvest crops immediately if present. Use new set of seedlings, change farming site / method, and use lower stocking density.

(4) Harvest in 45-60 days. Seaweed can be sold wet or dry to processors. Dried seaweed brings more income if it is clean and with moisture content of 35-39%. It is best to keep harvested seaweeds off the ground (remember that the carrageenan is bound for products for human consumption). Use a layer of mat, fish net, or coconut leaves and constantly turn seaweeds to accelerate drying; or dry seaweeds in a platform or hangings lines. Sun-dry for 2-3 days.

(5) Tie the seaweed in bales, then store in a clean, cool, dry and well-ventilated place while awaiting buyers.
- See more at: http://www.seafdec.org.ph/2011/08/page/2/#sthash.aK35tSOj.dpuf

 

 

This is what you are saying would cost $20 000. This is why i think that figure is ridiculous.

 

This is what I think you are thinking of...

 

 

If that is the case then we are talking about very different breeds of Algae/kelp/seaweed.

 

I am talking about the kind of seaweed you pull out of your propeller everyday. If you buy an Algaeburger it comes from the kind of seaweed I am talking about.

 

I think you are talking about microalgae.

 

I am speaking of the rough and tough seaweed that sometimes grows so thick it is like a small tree trunk...

 

Seaweed and Algae are synonymous. They are the same thing, but with many breeds and sizes.

 

Microalgae is not suitable for growing on a wire lattice as you stated, but the rough and tough breeds of seaweed that grow taller than men are.

 

 

 

This is what it would look like. No $30 000 scaffolding, no $20 000 in labour or costs. It is just throw a bit of seaweed on a floating rope and push it out to sea. Rinse and repeat like in the instructions I quoted.

 

 

 

This picture is meant to show a seaweed farmer lifestyle, but just look at how the MASSIVE ALGAE BREED's are in this. That is Algae in the picture. Algae = Seaweed = Kelp. They are all the same thing except with numerous breeds.

 

Now for the oxygen part. Most people are familiar with the concept of fire. And that requires oxygen. If you look at OSHA or other safety regulations with regards to enriched oxygen environments you will find that an increase of oxygen significantly increases fire risk. For example, fire retardant protective clothes loses their ability not to burn and at 25% lose protective abilities completely. Now, local increases of oxygen are somewhat risky. Increase of the whole atmosphere, and it is fair to assume that we have to rethink a lot of exothermic processes.

 

The idea is not even close to be rough and is conveniently devoid of published information that has been around for quite a bit. Incredulity and handwaving are not acceptable

 

 

If your Oxygen in the atmosphere idea is devoid of published information then why bring it up repeatedly. I certainly cannot find any papers on it either.

 

The amount of plant life needed to raise oxygen levels to the point of causing fire hazards seems hard to swallow.

 

Any excess oxygen would be lifted with the Brewer–Dobson circulation and find its way to The Stratosphere and aid in the creation of O3. The UV would transform the O2.

 

I do not fathom how you can say it is next to impossible to create oxygen and have stated how it stays the same over a millennia, and then in a separate paragraph warn of the dangers of creating too much (fire hazard).

 

 

 

 

Is the above farm similar to what The Irish Fisheries have? Is what you see in the photo above going to cost $20 000 to $50 000 (if we add scaffolding somewhere?).

 

 

 

I have suggested that one person doing the work seen above could do a football field size area in less than a week, and at a cost of less than $20 000.

 

 

The above is a seaweed farm similar to my description, but ropes would not last if we are wanting the plants to live long.

 

Is this the algae farm you describe when you said,

According to mine and incidentally your numbers the price for an algae pond is about 20k per acre (you really should google for an image of algae farms, it does not appear that you know what they are).

 

 

 

Since this idea came from the top of my head, don't you think my breed of seaweed is the one we are (supposed) to be discussing as an aid to the ozone.

 

I sure hope the massive amount of photos help, because I have no idea how you are arriving at estimates of $20000+ per acre, and am assuming you are thinking of Microalgae that pretty much stays tiny and floats in murky waters. There is a difference.

 

Maybe you think yours is better, but yours can't be seeded (planted) on ocean strings now could it?

 

If I was creating a health shake or fuel microalgae might be good, but I am talking about turning air bound carbon into life.

 

I really think you are on a different tangent /understanding of what I had proposed.

 

Now.. Now that I have shown many pictures.. Do you still think an Algae/Seaweed/kelp farm (The version I'm describing) requires $20 000 per acre and /or a $30 000 scaffold system?

Edited June 18, 2014 by barfbag

[Arete]

While I'm probably echoing at lot of what's already been said, and the pictures are pretty, they aren't really addressing any of the flaws in your proposal.

 

1) You need a proof of concept analysis. As in "Increasing global O₂ concentration by Δ% will increase O₃ by β% - restoring the ozone layer to pre-industrial levels by 20XX." Currently this is lacking. As the ozone layer is replacing itself, and thought to be potentially fully restored by 2070, you need to demonstrate that will actually restore the ozone layer significantly more quickly than it would do so otherwise, otherwise the proposal is sunk before any other analysis is done.

 

2) You need a proof of efficacy analysis. As in "An acre of algae farm produces Ω oxygen per day. Φ acres of algae farm will produce Ω x Φ oxygen per day. This will increase the global oxygen concentration by β% by 20XX. Natural atmospheric stabilizing forces will be overcome due to X, Y and Z. Currently, you appear to be simply assuming that it will simply work. If you do the math and discover that you'd need to cover the globe 6 times over to have any significant effect and/or other atmospheric forces will simply negate the increases, the idea is sunk.

 

3) You need a cost estimate. Currently all you are really saying "It won't be expensive/it won't cost as much as you say it will." Cool. break it down for us. Just warning, projects like this can turn out to surprisingly expensive - and for all that you can ascertain from a photograph (which isn't a lot) $20K per acre for what I see doesn't seem unreasonable. For e.g. if you wanted 20 rows of algae per acre, you'd need over 1200m of rope - to have buoy every 10m you'd need over 120. Then you need a boat, fuel, labor costs... do you also need a seaweed nursery? Do you need to fertilize the juvenile colonies? etc etc etc.

 

After you've done analyses A and B, you'll know how many acres you need. You can cost out materials and labor, then estimate maintenance. The cost will allow an assessment of feasibility.

 

4) You need a geographical analysis to provide suitable areas. Most of the ocean won't be suitable for algae farms, either due to low nutrient concentrations, storm activity, protected status, existing anthropocentric usage, etc. If analyses A and B say you need to cover a 1/4 of the world's oceans in algae farms for a significant effect, and only 1/200 of the ocean is suitable, the idea is sunk.

 

5) You need a turnover analysis to provide any benefit to greenhouse gas reduction. Seaweeds are colonial organisms - each cell is an individual even in kelp. As such, I would imagine that there is a very high rate of turnover - lots of cells dying and being replaced http://books.google.com/books?id=gl7hw2WLAlcC&pg=PA630&lpg=PA630&dq=algal+turnover&source=bl&ots=6Qp5AILiqF&sig=wCc_kZsC1F4kDmnxR5FsrGwlp8k&hl=en&sa=X&ei=KJahU-ybJOO_sQSA-4HABQ&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=algal%20turnover&f=false. This makes algae a poor carbon sequestration tool - remember CO₂ from fossil fuels is being released from long term storage, and biomass is short term storage. So unless you are routinely harvesting the seaweed and somehow sequestering the carbon (simply burying it will not work, as it will decay and release CO₂) you would not be able to claim any long term/significant impact on global CO₂ concentration.

 

Ultimately, I'd be very surprised if the concept could be proved viable and efficacious, which makes of any further limitations somewhat moot. Additionally, your frustration at the critique of others is showing in your response and appears flippant and condescending. No one cares how well educated you think you are, how experienced you are or how eloquent you think may be, the user base here is usually simply looking for you to put up the proof/math behind your ideas. If you can, great, if you can't, you may need to adjust your ideas. Refusal to justify or modify an idea in the face of criticism makes the idea worthless.

Edited June 18, 2014 by Arete

[barfbag]

@ Arete,

 

Yes. It is pointless. My last post was to show someone that they were way off base on the BREED of Algae and that's why so many photos.

 

why would we carry on talking about something else

Edited June 18, 2014 by barfbag

[CharonY]

Let's start with the minor points first. I started with microalgae because they are the most productive systems. Per volume they create the most biomass and oxygen of all cultivation systems. That would be a critical factor toward your proposal (that you have not addressed at all). That is at least one of the reason why people want to harvest them for biofuel production. Note that these cultivation systems do not produce biofuel per se as you may think, they are ponds or tanks for high-density cultivation of these bacteria. Thus, they are considered to be the most cost efficient means (a point that is constantly ignored). I should add that some newer research starts to contest this point, but AFAIK there is no really any large-scale evidence yet.

 

As I tried to explain, cultivation of kelp, seaweed or other algae tend to be much less productive and per biomass are typically more expensive. The numbers that you simply cannot believe (for whatever reason) are those given for both systems based on estimates of engineers who actually design and scale this systems to industrial production. I even did the work for you and pulled the numbers for longline cultivation a method that allows the cultivation deeper waters (up to 10 m, I believe). Since you cannot be arsed to look them up, here one link that shows the costs involved. I was under the assumption that you were at least roughly familiar with the different types of cultivation and productivity values, so my apologies for not clarifying it enough. For the benefit of others (i.e. who actually may be interested) a typical longline system (as shown in the pics) of 1000 sqm yields about 3.6 t of dry weight biomass or about 14.5 t per acre. Contrast that with the over 200 t per acre rain forest.

 

These are minor points, however, and I should not have getting sidetracked like this (but in this case the numbers are easy to come by, so I like to play with them). Arete has summarized the much more important points of your proposal quite succinctly and I have to note that you have not addressed the relevant point in any way. Most likely 1 and 2 are sufficient to stop the idea dead in its tracks (as I have tried to explain in an earlier post, though much less succinctly).

 

At this point it should be clear that the idea has no merit at least not without a substantially new idea. And this reflects what John and Ophiolite have mentioned before, throwing around ideas with not substance is cheap and is typically a humongous waste of time. A proper brainstorming session would try to fill the ideas with meat, something that is curiously absent.

Edited June 18, 2014 by CharonY

[barfbag]

@ Charony,

 

http://www.fao.org/docrep/field/003/AC287E/AC287E03.htm

 

That link was found in 1 minute by googling "Seaweed farming for food cost".

 

 

EDIT: These charts looked like they copied okay until I posted. Charts on link provided.

 

320-LINE FARM 480-LINE FARM Materials Cost per Unit Amount Needed Total Cost Amount Needed Total Cost Posts (timber or mangrove wood) $ 1.50 each 30 $ 45.00 45 $ 67.50 7 mm rope $ 0.14/m 210 m $ 29.40 320 m $ 44.80 3 mm rope $ 0.025/m 1,700 m $ 42.50 2,500 m $ 62.50 Raffia $ 1.25/roll 30 rolls $ 37.50 50 rolls $ 62.50 U nails $ 3.00/kg 1 kg $ 3.00 2 kg $ 6.00 Galvanized Wire $ 2.80/kg 10 kg $ 28.00 10 kg $ 28.00 TOTAL EXPENSES $ 185.40 $ 271.30

 

 

So if we add $271.30 + (see chart below)

 

320-LINE FARM 480-LINE FARM Materials Cost per Unit Amount Needed Total Cost Amount Needed Total Cost Stakes nil 360 nil 540 nil 3 mm rope $ 0.025/m 1,760 m $ 44.00 2,640 m $ 66.00 Raffia $ 1.25/roll 30 rolls $ 37.50 50 rolls $ 62.50 TOTAL EXPENSES $ 81.50 $ 128.50

 

 

So if we add $271.30 + 128.50 + (see chart below)

 

Crowbar $ 18.00 Mall hammer $ 18.00 Pliers $ 8.00 Claw hammer $ 10.00 Bow saw $ 12.00 Mask and snorkel (2 sets) $ 54.00 Kitchen knives (2 at $.75 each) $ 1.50 Cane knive $ 7.00 TOTAL EXPENSES $ 128.50

 

So if we add $271.30 + $128.50 + $128.50 = $528.30 (see my calculator works fine).

 

That is a cost of $528.30 for all supplies necessary for an acre of seaweed.

 

 

Now Labour:

If you decide to work 4 days per week, you can harvest 10 to 15 lines per day, depending on the size of your farm.

In case you plan to expand your farm, say up to 800 lines, two people will be sufficient to look after the planting and harvesting operations. For a larger farm a family of 4 to 5 members is recommended.

 

$528.30 compared to $20 000.

 

Again that link is

http://www.fao.org/docrep/field/003/AC287E/AC287E03.htm

 

DAILY RECORD Example Number of hours spent farming : 6 hrs Hours spent elsewhere (plantation, etc.) : 2 hrs Labour (Number of people working with you) : 4 Numbers of lines harvested : 40 Numbers of lines planted : 20 Weight of seaweed collected and dried : 120 kg Amount of money earned by selling seaweed : $ 60.00 Other incomes (fish sales, etc.) : $ 25.00 EXPENDITURES Loan (FDB and others) payment : Fuel for your motor boat : Fuel for your car (or truck) : Grease : Repair/maintenance : Labour cost : Food for you and your family : School fees, etc. : Travelling : Medical expenses : Traditional : Housing : Farm costs : Others. : TOTAL EXPENDITURES :

 

 

I am done with this thread, but still think that your estimates for $20 000 to grow an acre of seaweed when the people in this link do it for $ 528.30 is a huge difference. How do you account for this discrepancy?

 

I still think you are talking about a different type of Farm.. Your link was for a Hatchery where they grow seaweed to feed many breeds of fish for 18 million Euro profit.

 

http://ecopreneurist.com/2012/11/09/the-benefits-of-seaweed-farming-on-the-environment/

Edited June 18, 2014 by barfbag

[Arete]

Issue 1: $528 is only raw materials and does not include any land/foreshore purchasing or leasing, labor costs, insurance costs, infrastructure (boats, pontoons, etc), maintenance costs...

 

Issue 2: Your example produces about 180kg of biomass per week: "In a 4-day week you can produce 180 kg of dried seaweed". That's not very much per acre at all.

 

Issue 3: Your example requires daily maintenance: "To be a productive farmer, the seaweed farm should be well attended. This means that you constantly visit and check your farm". Rolled out a scale that would change global oxygen concentrations, you're talking about an extremely non-trivial level of daily maintenance.

 

Issue 4: Without proof of concept and efficacy, working out costs is a moot point. It's like costing out items to build a homemade jetpack to get to Mars.