Large Scale Ocean Based Algae Production System by Robert Tulip

Author Response to Climate Colab Reviewers' comments Large Scale Ocean Based Algae Production System Robert Tulip 1. Thank you for the comments. My proposal updates ideas that I developed in 2008, building on my work with the AusAID Forest Carbon Initiative and my collaboration with Mr Terry Spragg, inventor of the waterbag. The aim is to identify the fastest, safest and most cost-effective way to sequester enough carbon to work with nature to stabilise the global climate, as a Gaia Project. 2. Innovative industrial technology, using the fastest natural carbon fixer, algae, can convert the maximum amount of CO2 at the minimum price with a safe and practical implementation plan. My invention combines the Spragg Waterbag principle that fresh water floats in sealed bags at sea www.waterbag.com with elements from NASA's Offshore Membrane Enclosure for Growing Algae research project, and with my own inventions that use the waterbag principle to generate pumping energy to produce algae in the most efficient way possible at scale. 3. A recent scholarly article by Dr Jonathan Trent et al, Microalgae Cultivation Using Offshore Membrane Enclosures for Growing Algae (OMEGA), in the Journal of Sustainable Bioenergy Systems, 2013, 3, 18-32, Published Online March 2013 at http://www.scirp.org/journal/jsbs describes current status of the OMEGA method. pdf link - http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx?paperID=29069 An interview with Dr Trent in Energy Next Magazine, May 2013 http://www.energynext.in/dr-jonathan-trent/ suggests that the OMEGA method, focussed on wastewater as a nutrient source, is likely to be implemented commercially at scale, although at present there are no specific plans to do so. The challenges are to work out how OMEGA can be optimized for energy efficiency and scaled up economically, and to find investors for the next phase. My waterbag tide and wave pumping methods aim to bring the OMEGA costs down to make it profitable. 4. Dr Trent described my tidal pumping method as "quite brilliant" (personal communication). However, his caution about the overall system I have presented here is that ocean CO2 dissolution rate may make it impractical, and that deep ocean water lacks sufficient nutrient to be commercially viable as input, so the systems need to start with sewage, in sheltered locations close to urban wastewater sources. My view is that the deep ocean operation is an end goal, like an A380 compared to an early biplane, but capable of being developed within the next decade through intensive innovation. The next step is to build on the findings of OMEGA and other related activities to pilot small algae production systems that are designed for scale up. 5. My proposal also overlaps with Dr William Calvin's Ocean Pump geoengineering concept in this competition. Where I see my ideas as augmenting Dr Calvin's Ocean Pump is in my suggestion to use fabric bags to contain the produced algae so it can be used as a commercial commodity to fund replication, and in the use of waterbags for pumping, stability and buoyancy, as likely to be a lower cost and more robust method than windmills. 6. My answers to reviewer comments are presented below as numbered paragraphs, answering the integrated review team comments on my proposal Large Scale Ocean Based Algae Production System. I will provide further response to additional comments from reviewers as well, and would be pleased to revise the system to focus on practical needs in response to discussion. My claims are all at concept stage, and require laboratory research and analysis to develop and prove viability for pilot systems. Through this proposal I am seeking interest in implementing these ideas as a scientific research project, ideally in collaboration with large energy companies, academic researchers and governments. 7. First, I present some additional general system description. My concept involves sealed floating bags of fresh water in the ocean as the structural framework to pump enriched salt water through a contained central chamber functioning as an algae Photo-Bio-Reactor (PBR). The system aims to produce algae with no external fossil fuel input with a method that is ecologically friendly and rapidly scalable. 8. Preliminary drawings of the components of the system are roughly sketched at my website, http://rtulip.net/ocean_based_algae_production_system_provisional_patent This website dates from 2009/10. I have not sought legal protection of intellectual property except through an expired preliminary patent. 9. A sealed fabric tube of fresh water will float at sea, becoming part of the wave. The up and down motion of the waterbag can be used to produce pumping energy, both to pump nutrient-rich salt water from below the thermocline into a sealed PBR chamber between parallel tubes of fresh water, and to pump CO2 enriched air into the PBR. The air input should contain a high CO2 concentration from mine and power plant emissions. For example, CO2 from the Gorgon Gas Project on Australia's North West Shelf would gain a more economic use in this method than in the existing geosequestration proposal described at http://sequestration.mit.edu/tools/projects/gorgon.html 10. Nutrient input to the PBR can be augmented by waste water and potentially by the protein and carbohydrate from the produced algae, once the oil has been separated for sale. This recycling of produced algae could enable use in locations of lower nutrient input in the open sea. 11. The wave pumping method for adding air or water to the PBR is as follows. A cylindrical tube of fresh water floating at sea can have 'bellows' chambers added to its underside along its whole length. These chambers, each about half a wave length in size, would have one way valves on the inlet and outlet pipes and weights on the bottom so they open when they are rising and close when they are falling. As the wave rises the waterbag rises too, and each separate bellows chamber opens up, sucking in air or water through the inlet pipe. As the wave falls, the bellows chamber expels the contained air or water through the outlet pipe into the PBR. With parallel fresh waterbags on each side of the PBR, additional inputs can be added along the whole length of the system to enable continued algae growth. 12. Another main system component uses waterbags for tidal pumping. Submerged bags containing saline water can use tidal energy to pump ocean water using a bellows system fixed to the ocean floor. Placed on the continental shelf in water of depth 200 metres at high tide, the bag salt content can be regulated to always position its base at 198 meters below the sea surface, anchored in position so that the space between this pumping bag and the ocean floor continually expands and shrinks with the tide. A bellows bag is placed below the pumping bag. A system 20 meters in radius in a tide of two meters could pump up to five megalitres of water per day at zero energy cost, with output depending on pumping bag size and vertical lift distance of pumped water. I envisage this component as the primary method to raise enriched water from below the thermocline or to pump waste water. By placing the tidal pump at the edge of the continental shelf the inlet pipe can reach down to deeper water. 13. This tidal pumping method may also be usable to pump emissions from coal powered electricity stations and other CO2 sources out to marine algae factories, via shore-based gas storage tanks, using a falling tide to fill the tank with water to pump out the gas and gravity to release the contained water and suck in gas during each rising tide. Systems placed in the China Sea near Beijing and Shanghai could clean the air and water in China and use the captured CO2 to make algae biofuel and other products, closing the loop so power station emissions are continually converted back into fuel instead of being released as pollution. I provided some preliminary thoughts on operation in China in an unpublished paper available at my website co-written with a Chinese colleague Dr Yao Fu-De, titled Strategic path for the development of microalgal bio-diesel in China. 14. The algae PBR is designed to maximise algae production by optimising balance of nutrients, CO2, and light and dark, and by developing optimal varieties of algae. Constantly feeding back into the inlet the highest yielding produced strain can apply selective pressure to force the evolution of algae to maximise oil production in a high CO2 environment. 15. I envisage a method for developing high yield strains as follows. A PBR of length one kilometre and width 10 meters and depth one meter (one hectare, ten megalitres) will contain internal baffles so that the inlet water travels ten kilometres in order to optimise yield. The baffle system moves the water from side to side across the system along a channel one metre in width, and also up and down with baffles to regulate light and dark. With three parallel PBRs each 10m wide, whose algae quantity and quality is constantly measured, algae from the highest yielding line can be pumped directly back to the inlet to seed the incoming enriched water for the three tracks. This method will create simple selective pressure for algae mutation to adapt to a gradual constant increase of CO2 level in the artificial environment of the PBR. As well, horizontal baffles can regulate light and dark. For example, only the top 20 cm might be exposed to the light above a reflective baffle, with 80 cm depth below in dark. Experiment is needed to optimise these design features. 16. The algated soup produced by this system will be pumped into sealed bags. These sealed bags can then be floated away to enable further algae growth and cooling of ocean water. They can then be sunk to the deep ocean floor, where water pressure can be used to concentrate the algae by removing the water. These sealed bags of algae sitting on the ocean floor will be a valuable commodity, a carbon bank, containing oil suitable for refinement into biodiesel, as well as protein and carbohydrate. These products can easily be raised to the surface for sale. 17. The challenge of cooling the Arctic Ocean is a primary requirement for global climate stabilisation to prevent dangerous feedback loops from ice melt and methane release. This system is not able to cool polar waters directly due to weak sunlight at high latitudes, but it can cool the water in the Gulf of Mexico at the start of the Gulf Stream, cooling the Loop Current http://www.texaspelagics.com/GOMocean.html that forms the Gulf Stream. This location could also convert into algae the nutrient outflow from the Mississippi River that now produces a dead zone. This process would clean and cool the sea water, reducing heat input to the Gulf Stream and therefore the Arctic, also possibly helping to reduce hurricane intensity. Direct Response to Reviewer Comments Reviewer Comment 1: The main question that was raised regarding the proposal is exactly how it will contribute to reducing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The system is meant to produce algae, and that is essential to the proposal as it is presently devised. But what is to be done with this algae? Is the proposal looking to replace fossil fuels with biofuels, and thereby substitute fossil-fuel emissions of CO2? Or is it looking to transport CO2 via grown algae to the deep ocean where it is sequestered -- thereby helping draw-down atmospheric CO2? This explanation needs to be clarified and strengthened. Answer 18. Produced algae can be used both for long term sea floor storage of recoverable carbon in bags, and for immediate commercial use. What is to be done with the algae will depend on the context of climate security, food security and energy security. 'Banking' carbon in algae in the deep ocean in a form that is accessible for subsequent use can deliver against the range of emerging objectives. However, funding of system expansion requires replacing fossil fuels by algae biofuel as a primary objective for this system. The aim is to provide both liquid fuel for the transport sector and for solid fuel for electricity plants, providing seamless input to enable continued use of existing infrastructure with carbon neutral fuel. Algae biofuel production will reduce net emissions, generate funds for system replication and subsidise sequestration. Reviewer Comment 2: If the scheme involves growing algae, sinking them into the deep ocean, and permanently sequestering CO2, there are crucial difficulties with this approach that involve questions about ocean biogeochemistry. These would need to be addressed as the proposal moves forward. Answer 19. Agreed. Biogeochemistry risks would partly be addressed by use of sealed bags separating the produced algae from the surrounding marine environment. The bag fabric will be produced as bioplastic from algae oil, as part of the sequestration effort. 20. Cooling of water beneath PBRs in tropical latitudes will have impact on oceanic biogeochemistry. This impact will be ecologically positive in a context of anthropogenic warming, especially for coral reefs and other high biodiversity locations where rising water temperature is causing migration toward the poles. 21. The need for sequestration of produced algae is initially high to assist with climate stabilisation. As this system is replicated, up to potential scale of 2% of the world ocean surface, it is possible that short term sequestration, capturing carbon to make algae to burn for energy, could still enable rapid progress to drive atmospheric CO2 level downward, by using closed loop systems to feed power station emissions back into algae farms. Reviewer Comment 3: First, the rate of algae growth is limited by the rate of CO2 dissolution in ocean water, which would seem to be far too small to have a significant impact on atmospheric CO2. Your proposal envisions algae production occurring in tubes, leading to even smaller mixing rates between atmospheric CO2 and ocean. How would the scheme address this? Are there ways to enhance gas exchange rates of CO2? Answer 22. Within the sealed artificial environment of the aerated salt water PBR, strains of algae will evolve under selective pressure to enable continual increase of the amount of CO2 the algae takes from the water. As noted above, gas will continually be added to the PBR to optimise production. With CO2 added to the water, up to the maximum dissolution rate, the continual increased removal rate of the CO2 by plant husbandry of the algae, developing higher yielding strains, will enable steady increase in concentration of CO2 in the input gas. A system initially drawing CO2 from the surrounding air and from deep water can gradually shift to draw CO2 from more concentrated sources such as power plant and mine emissions. 23. The PBR tube has CO2 pumped into it continually from the air, drizzling up from the base through the algated water. Ideally all the carbon should be eaten by the algae so the gas released back into the air is carbon-free. 24. Gas exchange rates can be enhanced by improving the yield of the algae. The natural farming selection methods I have described should be sufficient to improve yield, although there may be scope for genetic engineering, addressing algae properties such as quorum sensing, if this can be proven to be safe. 25. Gas exchange rates may also be enhanced by cooling the water at the point of CO2 entry, and by use of deep cold water. Reviewer Comment 4. Another basic difficulty relates to the fact that deeper ocean is rich in CO2. For this reason it is hard see how increasing vertical mixing between shallow and deep waters will achieve the goals. What would seem to be required for the idea to work is to improve the efficiency of the biological pump, not just to increase vertical mixing to bring more nutrients to the surface. These points really need to be addressed for the proposal to be considered feasible. Answer 26. Vertical mixing of ocean water can remove CO2 from the air if the deep water is held in a sealed fabric container at the ocean surface to extract nearly all its carbon, plus carbon pumped in from the air, by converting it into algae. 27. The proposed system will produce large quantities of algae, providing commercial feedstock for fuel, fertilizer, food and fabric commodity markets. The algae produced by initial systems can be used to make plastic fabric bags to replicate the system, with the bags themselves serving as a carbon sequestration location. 28. Any carbon leakage to the atmosphere is a commercial waste to be minimised by systemic efficiency measures. 29. The efficiency of the biological pump is improved by sealing the system to minimise carbon release into the atmosphere, unlike the preliminary Lovelock Tube concept. Reviewer Comment 5. If the goal of your proposal is mainly to draw-down atmospheric CO2, the above points will need to be addressed for the proposal to be considered feasible. Specifically, the proposal will have to address how it plans to increase the rate of mixing of atmospheric CO2 into ocean water surrounding these plantations, and how it seeks to increase the efficiency of the ocean biological pump of CO2. Answer 30. A key point for draw-down is the use of sealed containers to prevent escape of CO2. The aim is to eventually make algae bags on very large scale, up to 2% of the world ocean, sufficient to drive CO2 down to stable ppm. Sealed bags sunk to the ocean floor will enable long term sequestration/banking, or immediate piping of algae oil to the surface for energy. Reviewer Comment 6. Furthermore, from what depths would deep water be brought up to the surface and how, and what would be done with the algae-containing water at the surface and how? Answer 31. The thermocline, the location of richest water, is generally up to 200m deep, and shallower at continental shelfs. The system would pump water up from just below the thermocline using fresh waterbags to power tidal and wave pumping methods described above. The deep water would be used to fuel a PBR, producing algated water which would be sunk to the bottom of the sea in bags for concentration and subsequent sale. Reviewer Comment 7. Following this, it could address the question of scale. How large must these plantations be to make a difference, given the challenges and the solutions that are involved. Answer 32. This system will begin to make a difference at small scale through local ocean cooling and de-acidification. The eventual aim is to scale up to 2% of the world ocean, ie about ten million square kilometres, in order to drive global climate stabilisation by reduction of atmospheric CO2 level. This method can initially operate on continental shelves and sheltered bays in tropical seas, such as in northern Australia and the Gulf of Mexico, and then expand to the open ocean. 33. The OMEGA JSBS paper cited above states that pilot production trials achieved daily yield above 20 grams dry algae per square meter. Other sources claim results of 50 grams. Intensive improvement of yield could drive these figures much higher. At 50 grams per square meter, this method would need to occupy about 2% of the world ocean to sequester all anthropogenic emissions. While obviously occupying valuable marine space, the system can be designed to minimise adverse impacts and maximise benefits for biodiversity, for example by cleaning and cooling the water entering the Great Barrier Reef and the Gulf Stream, and by providing algae as fish food. 34. The National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) of the USA estimated in 2008 that 50 million square km of the ocean surface was classed as desert, due to low chlorophyll production, and that this area is growing due to climate change. The methods described here have potential to convert these ocean desert regions into productive fisheries by mixing inputs at the surface, helping to solve the global food security problem and stabilise the global climate. PBRs in suitable locations may also serve as fish nurseries. 35. The climate benefit includes sucking carbon out of the air, local ocean cooling and ocean de-acidification. At the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, local cooling would prevent coral death. Placement of algae production systems at river mouths would feed nutrients into energy production instead of reef destruction. Reviewer Comment 8. If however the main goal is to produce algae for bioenergy, then the critical questions relate to the scale of the efforts that are envisioned and how far this can substitute for fossil fuel based energy supply, given where these plantations will be situated. Answer 36. This system provides a feasible gradual method to wean the world off fossil fuels. Eventually the goal is to completely substitute for fossil fuels, although that may not be necessary if atmospheric CO2 level can be stabilised and reduced. It is conceivable that fossil carbon could be used for purposes such as construction, which might justify further extraction of fossil carbon. If we keep adding 30-40 gigatonnes of CO2 per year to the air from fossil fuels, as envisaged in the stock price of fossil energy companies, then this carbon and more will have to be removed by large scale algae production. As algae production expands it will gradually make fossil sources less economic. 37. An aim here is to cooperate closely with large energy firms, so they can shift to a sustainable energy supply source, and so they can provide capital and know-how to rapidly carry out research, development and deployment. 38. All my ideas are freely available in the public domain for anyone to use, with no patent protection. Reviewer Comment 9. A related issue is of energy costs of the proposal. As mentioned in one of the sets of specific comments below, there are processes in your proposal that require external energy inputs. What are the energy requirements and what non CO2 emitting energy sources would be available at these locations? If fossil fuels must be used, would this diminish the benefit of being able to produce biofuels as a byproduct of the scheme or the benefits of absorbing atmospheric CO2? Can the algae produced in the scheme be used to provide a portion of the needed energy supplies, and if yes then what would be the net benefits be after taking into account all of the main requirements for implementing the scheme? Answer 39. No processes in this proposal should require external energy inputs, except for initial setup and piloting. The energy sources are the vast natural oceanic supplies of wave, tide, sun, wind and current. The algae produced would provide any required additional power needs for the system, as well as providing the feedstock for plastic fabric manufacture. Waterbags are able to convert wave energy to spin generator flywheels for both pumping and electricity. Reviewer Comment 10. We encourage you to consider carefully both the reviewers' comments and address them as best as you can while revising the proposal during the next phase of the contest. The first steps could be to clarify the goals of the scheme. If the main goal is to effect a large draw-down of atmospheric CO2, the critical challenges of ocean biogeochemistry need to be addressed. Answer 40. Thank you again for these pertinent and helpful comments. I hope my responses above have adequately addressed them. I apologise for any errors, which are entirely mine, and for any undue repetition, resulting from answering the questions as asked. I would be pleased to expand on and discuss any points that remain unclear. Robert Tulip

Question: How will you address increased radiation, not solar, in ocean from nuclear accidents and dumping? considering food stock from ocean algea. pj, thank you for raising the important issues of how an algae industry would relate to food quality and potential for nuclear radiation. The first point to make is that large scale algae production has immense potential to improve global food security and biodiversity by vastly enhancing ocean productivity. Fish depend on the upwelling of rich cold ocean currents to provide the nutrients for algae growth at the base of the food chain in their most abundant locations. If we can artificially replicate this upwelling process, and even use algae photobioreactors as fish nurseries, then the pressure we are placing on global fish stocks through overfishing can be eased. The social, economic and political risks of global food insecurity are large, since agricultural productivity is not growing as fast as population. At present rates research reported at http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jun/20/crop-yeilds-world-population indicates likely rising levels of famine due to the combination of growing population, low growth of agricultural food production and climate change. Ocean based algae production can solve the global food security problem if algae food inputs can be made safely and at low cost. Use of protein from algae for food for livestock, poultry and fish is likely to be a higher value product than biofuel, according to the article by Williams and Laurens I cited in my proposal.* Algae food products, including oil, protein and carbohydrate, must of course meet national food quality standards. Testing is needed for all heavy metals as well as radiation. On these topics, you may be interested to read Here on Earth – An Argument for Hope, by Tim Flannery, published in 2010. Flannery points out that coal fired power stations are emitting large quantities of mercury, and are responsible for two thirds of the mercury circulating in the air and oceans. We concentrate heavy metals such as mercury and cadmium in our bodies. If we could make ocean based algae production competitive against fossil coal for power production, with the algae forming a closed loop by being fed by power station emissions, we can start to clean up the atmosphere on large scale, addressing problems such as radiation and metals. For example, the biggest coal fired power station in the world is the Taichong Power Plant in Taiwan, which burns about 15 million tonnes of coal each year, emitting about 40 million tonnes of CO2 each year according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taichung_Power_Plant . An ocean based algae farm of radius 25 km could potentially provide all the fuel for this plant, reducing its emissions to zero. I agree with you that nuclear radiation is a severe problem, and that is why I advocate algae production as an ecologically safer energy source than uranium. http://e360.yale.edu/feature/radioactivity_in_the_ocean_diluted_but_far_from_harmless/2391/ explains the impact on the ocean of the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Perhaps algae farms could be grown in high radiation currents as a way to remove the radiation from the food chain? These are highly complex scientific questions that require research. The dilemma is that Japan and Germany are switching from nuclear to coal, which may have even worse climate and environmental impact. My argument is that algae could be an entirely new fuel source which is vastly superior to existing methods on climate and environmental grounds. * Microalgae as biodiesel & biomass feedstocks: Review & analysis of the biochemistry, energetics & economics, an article by Peter J. le B. Williams and Lieve M. L. Laurens, published in 2010 in the Journal of Energy and Environmental Science, available at http://www.eng.utah.edu/~whitty/chen6553/microalgae_biofuel_review.pdf Robert Tulip

Some further points to expand on my proposal. 1. Ocean based algae production for energy and food is a highly innovative but simple technological response to climate change, with potential to make a decisive contribution. My proposal relates to other CoLab proposals by William Calvin and Mark Capron. I would welcome the opportunity to collaborate with Dr Calvin and Dr Capron to explore potential synergies between our ideas. 2. My approach starts from the end point of recognising that algae production is potentially the most productive, profitable, simple and ecological way to mine CO2 from the air, and then working back to describe the most efficient and effective system to achieve this goal. Methods I have described for tidal pumping and wave pumping will have a range of other profitable spinoffs. Simple inexpensive laboratory modelling can rapidly define the potential. 3. The geoengineering debate is dominated by emergency fix ideas to reflect solar radiation back to space, especially adding sulphur to the stratosphere to mimic volcanic cooling effects. Solar Radiation Management may prove to be necessary for rapid deployment if we have a sudden upward spike in temperature after the plateau of the last decade. Arctic sea ice melt and tundra methane release are especially worrying as having potential feedback effects which would require SRM as an emergency control measure. But SRM fails to address the cause of global warming, increased CO2 levels. SRM cannot be a long term answer to climate stability because the rapid increase in CO2 level brings massive risks, especially ocean acidification, which have to be addressed through sustainable rapid large scale methods to remove CO2 from the air to restore the previous stable system. Algae production at sea is the best candidate as a CO2 removal technology because algae production can be self-funding once startup technological and investment hurdles are passed. 4. Please add your comments and support to my proposal.

I would welcome offers to collaborate.

regarding your reply on radiation: "Perhaps algae farms could be grown in high radiation currents as a way to remove the radiation from the food chain?" It may be possible that installing this project at sites where the Japanese current carries Fukushima radiation may help - though, dispersion may be too widespread for this to be effective. I wonder, is there any compound/material that attracts and traps radiation in ocean environments? I'll take a looksee. Of course, I think that any algae produced in radiation soaked areas could not be put into the food chain...

Robert, Sorry, I have been distracted. A few weeks ago, was that you expressing regret the Ocean Foresters had withdrawn our entry under Geoengineering? Regardless, would you like to join the Ocean Foresters in any of our four entries? The ones under Agriculture & forestry and Scaling Renewables being closest to your area of interest. The ones under Replacing diesels and Hydraulic fracturing being farther out. Mark

This proposal focuses on using presently unproductive regions of the ocean to grow algae that can be harvested for generation of energy, with the intent being to reduce the reliance on fossil fuels as a way to limit climate change. Strictly speaking, this type of approach is generally considered mitigation (in particular, generating renewable energy) and not CDR because the process is not pulling CO2 out of the system with the intent to sequester the CO2, but is instead focused on limiting extraction of fossil fuel CO2 (so leaving CO2 in the ground) and thus preventing the consequent additional injection of fossil fuel CO2 into the ocean. As for the proposal with the push-pull pumps, there is the problem that arises because lifting nutrient rich waters from depth to the surface can lead to the outgassing of the super-saturated CO2, especially in the warm sunlit regions that best grow algae. The proposer attempts to deal with this by isolating the biomass growing waters in floating containers; the more complicated such the approach gets, the harder and more expensive it is to scale up the biomass production to a significant level. Finally, there is the challenge of being cost effective compared to other options: the advantages of biofuels are that they are transportable and their energy can be concentrated and stored as compared to the electricity that is generated by wind and solar power systems. On the other hand, production of biofuels at sea seems likely to be more costly even though the solar energy is free and the areas of the ocean that would be used are not contributing to provision of other ecosystem services. Members of the Climate CoLab community are also invited to read a more comprehensive set of “Comments by Expert Reviewers on the Geoengineering Proposals” at https://www.climatecolab.org/resources/-/wiki/Main/Comments+by+Expert+Reviewers+on+the+Geoengineering+Proposals

The primary reason for these Climate CoLab proposals is to think above the box instead of just continue on-going research for those connected with MIT! This proposal does just that by focusing scientific research to an area of the planet that is as of now a scientific wilderness, for that reason alone, this proposal deserves to be funded because it will benefit mankind.

Expanding on the discussion of how useful carbon can be concentrated from algae grown industrially at sea, the link below shows a diagram of how ocean based algae production system can use a settling funnel to remove all water from the algae. This sketch has not been subject of any laboratory testing or peer review and is entirely unproven. I wish to do experiments to see if it would work, or to hear from scientists and engineers who could raise any technical problems that I have overlooked. The algae concentration system shown at the link below has five components: A: Algae Photobioreactor; B: Deep ocean settling tank; C: Water Surface Outlet; D: Concentrated Algae Outlet Pipe; E: Cable Reel Algae produced in floating polymer Photobioreactor A at sea is pumped using tidal or wave energy into a funnel shaped polymer settling tank B. The tank is deep enough that at base algae is concentrated by weight and water pressure. A surface outlet pipe C releases water. Base outlet pipe D pumps dense algae onto spool E, where it is rolled up like rope for further processing. The core scientific claim here is that the specific gravity of algae will be sufficient to form a dense paste at the outlet tube, which could be several kilometers deep. If this system is located at the edge of a continental shelf, for example next to the Timor Trench off the north coast of Western Australia, the funnel can go down as deep as needed for the weight of algae to prevent any water sinking to the depth of the algae outlet pipe. It may be possible that additives could change the properties of the produced algae, and that flocculants could speed up the sinking of the algae enabling a smaller system. Even if the idea is technically feasible, cost may be prohibitive. That remains to be seen. The idea is that the algae paste squeezed out the bottom could be of any needed diameter, from a millimeter to a meter. An array of tubes could weave an algae fabric that could be rolled up at depth. This fabric production method could produce suitable material for bag and funnel construction. Phasing pumping with the tide using the waterbag tidal pumping process I have decribed in my proposal would mean that during a falling tide, new algated water would be pumped into the funnel from the PBR, and during a rising tide the algae would settle in the funnel, which would be enclosed at the surface. This phased process would allow algae in the clean water expulsion pipe (C) to settle. The Cable Reel E at the base would spool algae rope continuously. This is just one of numerous simple innovative technological ideas within this proposal with large potential for inexpensive environmentally friendly energy and food production. These ideas can only be validated through other people, such as you, taking an interest. Link to Settling Funnel Diagram: http://rtulip.net/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/Deep_Water_Algae_Settling_and_Concentration_Apparatus.21451554_std.png

Focussing again on the Arctic Methane release problem, a great summary of the science with links to a wide range of sources was published yesterday in the Guardian at http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/05/7-facts-need-to-know-arctic-methane-time-bomb My proposal to cool the Gulf Stream using algae production may prove the most rapid, practical, acceptable and safe way to insure against catastrophic Arctic methane release. A series of floating plastic bags could aim to sink a proportion of the warm north flowing current, to where it would join cold south flowing deep currents. This is a way to reduce the entry of warm water into the Arctic in a way that would help return the system to the stable situation of the Holocene. My original drawing for this proposal envisaged starting in the Atlantic. I have replaced this diagram because sheltered coastal locations need to be the pilot sites. Nonetheless, this diagram gives a good picture of how to cool the Arctic, as a feasible method. Atlantic Current Algae System: http://rtulip.net/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/Ocean_Based_Algae_Production_System_Robert_Tulip.216181704_std.jpg

Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) and Algae Farm Geoengineering Expert comment stated: “There is no reference to OTEC, a tried experimental approach to bringing deep nutrient rich waters to the surface as a coolant for heat pumps.” OTEC requires a more complex system than the simple tidal pumping method I have invented and described here. An extensive wiki on OTEC is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_thermal_energy_conversion OTEC is now being commercialised by Lockheed Martin for the US Navy. http://www.lockheedmartin.com.au/us/products/otec.html My goal for algae farms involves pumping river or waste water into a PBR, or possibly later pumping up deep cold water to get nutrients. Tide is a much bigger, simpler and more scaleable and cost-effective power source than the heat difference used by OTEC. Robert Tulip

In discussion at Carbon War Room via LinkedIn, Tom Mallard has raised the suggestion of building prototype algae bag farms in rivers. With Tom's permission, I am sharing our dialogue here. Tom said A grand scale, reacting with a long and ongoing strategy for the Mississippi or any large watershed, that by lining the river and tributaries where it makes sense geographically with current-powered uptake pumps to supply grower-harvesters, the water can be cleaned by growing algae for a biofuel then returned to the river or used in irrigation by processing plants that are fed by a group of harvesters [my design 'fishing poles' trailed a prop that turned the pump]. Being geographic in scale one would discover how that part of the watershed worked and who to talk to about sources of pollution by analyzing the water at all those locations, residential-industrial-agricultural, to deal with it to reach a stasis where a balance is achieved and the annual dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico has been reduced the ultimate goal of the strategy. The river water also contains valuable silts-clays that are pure minerals and a part of the harvest, the de-watered algae after pressing are a quality fertilizer, yet, pesticides-herbicides make what could be good minerals or fertilizer a problem as using them will increase persistent residue levels that are not proven safe for animal or human consumption so useful as alternative methane to replace fossil natural gas locally. An important facet of using biodiesel is selecting species with low soot when burned, this to connect that the Arctic Ocean is heating from the loss of sea-ice that warms the air as well and with recent large cyclonic storms in the Arctic has thawed permafrost on land and under shallow sections of the ocean over millions of square kilometers and there is now a methane plume over areas in the stratosphere far beyond the normal range of 400-800-ppb now reading 1,000-ppb higher, over 1,800-ppb CH4. So, it's time to switch to low carbon-footprint, low-soot biofuels on a mass scale soon Response: Run of River Algae Farms are a great idea from Tom Mallard, to capture nutrients to recycle for fertilizer and fuel and to clean the river water. Such algae farms can be made of plastic bags designed with internal structure to maximise yield. This idea from Tom Mallard is an excellent spinoff from my proposal for large scale ocean based algae production in plastic bags, and could be a useful location for prototype work on materials and design and scale. . Tom's note about persistent pollutants is important, indicating that polluted river water should not be used to recycle harmful chemicals into crop production. I wonder if it is possible to cultivate algae species that selectively prefer eating pollutants, so these can be removed and stored safely or incinerated. My proposal involves the cultivation of algae strains that meet market and climate needs. Low-soot burning as mentioned by Tom should be a priority for any biofuels that will be used as petroleum replacement and produce CO2 emissions. There is also the potential for algae to serve as replacement fuel for power stations in a closed loop system so the carbon cycles from CO2 to algae through the farm, with zero emissions. My comment describing tidal pumping in my geoengineering entry at the CoLab competition explains more fully how tidal pumping for power stations could work. Tom said "Thanks Robert, the bag growing is so right on, the problem of the dead zone has a way to harvest the main river, riverside harvesting for the watershed extends the possible effectiveness in dealing with the runoff, it won't stop, it's not going away. If I can assist in applying your effort to rivers please feel free to contact me. " Response: Hi Tom, glad you get the idea. The Mississippi River can be cleaned up and deliver valuable commodities if suitable sites can be found along it for algae farms. I would expect these would be narrow and long, with internal baffle systems so the algae production is optimised. Locations would be needed that are acceptable to shipping and other interests. This is the best way to also clean up the Gulf of Mexico where nutrients are causing uncontrolled algal blooms. Tom Mallard also sent me the following comments privately, and agreed that I could quote them here. My responses are shown beneath each quoted paragraph from Tom. “Robert, I read the follow up comment by the experts, saw one that it wasn't a sequester method, your answer was deep water yet the Gulf Stream is doing this as best the planet can far cheaper & it's just delaying things by acidifying the water more than usual that will come back out.” Response: Large Scale Ocean Based Algae Production is a sequester method. Bags of concentrated algae can be stored on the sea floor, where their carbon is banked and available for later use. However, this goal requires many preparatory steps, starting with laboratory modelling of components and analytic proof of concept. The Gulf Stream has been heated up by anthropogenic carbon dioxide. My proposal end goal is to restore the Gulf Stream to its historic temperature to stop it from melting the Arctic, as a feasible geoengineering response to global climate change. Heat removal within ocean currents is likely to be a more sustainable and acceptable geoengineering method than tropospheric solar radiation management. On ocean acidification, algae production is a way to remove carbonic acid from the sea, making the water less acidic and protecting the food chain. This could be targeted to high risk locations such as coral reefs, where algae systems would cool, clean and deacidify the ocean currents flowing into the reef to protect the reef from climate change. “Summary: Reforestation is the only known method to use as a primary sequester for CO2 from history where humans caused a cooling on a global scale to rely upon, and, algae can be grown from many sources of nutrients to supply a biofuel locally to reduce or eliminate using wood for daily living needs and thus removing a major pressure of deforestation, and to power the many small IC-engines used on up in all societies.” Response: Algae is a bigger and better sequestration option than trees. Algae grows far faster than trees, and ocean surface is available and suitable on a far larger scale than terrestrial forests. By using industrial processes to maximise and control algae yield, algae can provide a far faster and bigger way to sequester CO2 than reforestation, which is also a good thing too. Your point illustrates that algae biofuel can slow deforestation by providing replacement fuel for wood. As well, algae can compete against palm oil which is a driver of deforestation. Algae might even become a competitive alternative source for timber and paper products. Small scale algae production to replace wood for fuel has interesting potential including in the poor world as an appropriate technology, using low cost small and robust design. I think it is feasible for poor countries to take a lead on algae, especially China and India. Mark Capron’s work on macroalgae in Fiji presents an excellent starting point for that. “I like the bags a lot.” Response: Thanks, I see this as a simple, elegant, scalable and sustainable method to contribute to efforts to stabilise the global climate by addressing peaks in energy and food markets. My friend Terry Spragg has struggled for thirty years to get waterbags accepted as a viable technology, but it seems to involve some sort of paradigm shift in our relation to the oceans so he has not secured investment. I see my innovations to use fresh water bags for energy production as presenting a potentially decisive new technology to combat climate change, and a business plan that should be attractive to commercial investors, especially the oil majors. “Without dropping greenhouse emissions it's a done deal we cook, sequester any form doesn't have a chance beyond the tonnage the Gulf Stream is getting rid of hourly, once emissions are lowered sequester methods have a chance.” Response: I disagree. We could use algae on 2% of the world ocean surface to sequester more carbon than total emissions. That means we could continue to emit at current scale and this algae production would balance the amount so CO2 ppm would not increase. But in fact algae reverses emissions, by securing its CO2 feedstock from current emitters such as power stations and mines. The whole climate debate needs to be reframed. Rather than looking for ways to reduce or shift our economic activity by making energy more expensive through tax penalties, we should focus on research and development of new technology that will be commercially competitive against fossil fuels. Algae fits this bill, and can replace fossil fuels while enabling continued use of existing transport and energy infrastructure, toward an objective of stabilising the global climate. “So, it's an important first step to have replacement fuels for all the IC-engines on the planet along with cooking & heating for everyone and algae based fuels can do it with a low carbon-footprint in the volume needed, this isn't sequester but scaled allows sequester to become effective.” Response: Yes, this is an excellent analysis which I encourage others to read closely. Your comment focuses on the biofuel use of algae and its potential to provide “replacement fuels for all the IC-engines on the planet along with cooking & heating for everyone”. This is true, and is a major point to make, while recognising that algae can do even more than eventually replace global fossil energy use . In fact algae can be used both for sequestration and for immediate consumption in fuel and food. The consumed algae is not sequestered, but works toward a closed loop so that, with sequestration, the parts per million of CO2 in the atmosphere is pushed downward. Sequestration can include both sinking algae in bags to the sea floor, and also using concentrated algae processed under the enormous pressure of the ocean depths as a construction material and for fabric production. “Then for sequestering there is only one proven, historical method that worked on a global scale to cool the planet and that was the primary mover to cause the Little Ice-age and was reforestation, short story, from European contact in the Americas a genocide of so many over so little time dropped CO2 enough from the disuse of agricultural acreage becoming forest again to cool a planet. [http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/january7/manvleaf-010709.html]” Response: You overstate the sequestration potential of forests, which are vulnerable to fire, grow slowly and occupy valuable scarce land. While reducing pressure on forests is a central ecological goal for protecting biodiversity, the best way to do this is to find more sustainable ways to deliver the economic goods now supplied by forests. Algae production can be decisive in reducing pressure on forests and their biodiversity, by producing biofuel for energy, feedstock for food production especially fisheries, fertilizer for farming and possibly even replacement for timber in housing construction. We can make use of the 71% of our planet that is covered by ocean to create artificial algae forests, whether using macroalgae as Mark Capron suggests or my more efficient and scalable proposal to grow algae in bags based on the NASA OMEGA model (offshore membrane enclosures for growing algae). Thanks very much for these insightful and pertinent comments Tom. I would welcome broad discussion of these ideas. Robert Tulip

Comment sent to @geoengineering google group. Re: [geo] Geoengineering carries unknown consequences - Phys Today Andrew, Thank you for sharing this commentary. I would like to respond to it in view of my proposal for Large Scale Ocean Based Algae Production, which proposes a practical method to cool the Gulf of Mexico as the source of the Gulf Stream which feeds heat from the tropics to the Arctic. My proposal is in the final voting stage of the MIT Climate CoLab competition. My responses to Dr Tsonis' comments are shown as added bullet points in the text below. From: Andrew Lockley To: geoengineering Sent: Sunday, 11 August 2013 4:01 AM Subject: [geo] Geoengineering carries unknown consequences - Phys Today Response to quoted comments from Anastasios A. Tsonis from http://m.physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v66/i8/p8_s3?bypassSSO=1 1. “I read with interest David Kramer’s piece on geoengineering http://www.physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v66/i2/p17_s1?bypassSSO=1 (Physics Today, February 2013, page 17). I must say, I am more alarmed by what the geoengineers in his report are proposing than by the climate changes that are taking place.” · This commentary is rather worrying as an indicator of a complacency about climate change. The writer is saying that the threats of climate change are less dangerous than proposed solutions to them. Maybe that indicates that persuasive safe solutions are not yet available, but it also carries the dubious inference that global climate management is not possible or desirable. 2. “I believe geoengineers are removed from scientific reality. They ignore the fact that the climate system and its components—clouds, hurricanes, and so forth—are highly nonlinear and thus very sensitive to the initial conditions and to changes in the parameters.” · My proposal for controlled algae production in large plastic bags at sea focuses on cooling the Gulf Stream as a goal. Ocean deployment would follow proof of concept through modeling in laboratory, river and coastal conditions. · The simple advantage of this algae production approach is that it addresses a reasonably linear reality – that much of the heat in the Arctic comes via the Gulf Stream, which is warming up due to anthropogenic CO2. · If we can cool down the single main input to Arctic heat, the Gulf Stream, we have a safe and hopefully rapid method to restore the global climate to an equilibrium more like the stable patterns of the Holocene, and to prevent the occurrence of a tipping point towards a new unknown and undesirable equilibrium. · Ocean currents present a much more linear climate process than the atmosphere. A focus on cooling ocean currents has the added benefit that algae production at sea mines carbon, reducing acidification and the long term causes of climate change. · As a linear approach, algae production for ocean cooling can be gradually scaled up and targeted, with ample opportunity for scientific study of feedback loops and possible effects. 3. “Nevertheless, one could study the system’s response in a probabilistic way when certain parameters are changed or when we introduce fluctuations, if the relationships among all the components are known exactly.And here lies the whole problem with geoengineering. The formulation of the climate system and its components is only approximately known. More than 30 climate models are floating around in the climate community, and their predictions about general dynamics simply don’t agree with each other. In a recent publication,1 we considered 98 control and forced climate simulations from 23 climate models and examined their similarity in four different fields (upper-level flow, sea-level pressure, surface air temperature, and precipitation).” · This claim of a lack of agreement among climate models ignores the big picture that all models agree that CO2 is a primary warming forcer, and that business as usual would cause dangerous warming. · My proposal for large scale algae production in the Gulf of Mexico as a method to cool the Gulf Stream and thereby cool the Arctic has not been modeled. Maybe algae production at sea can be readily falsified as a climate restorative strategy, but I would like to know. · My view is that the commercial production of algae has decisive advantages over other geoengineering methods in producing a profitable incentive for system replication and scale up, and providing direct ecological and economic benefits, but feasibility is yet to be established. 4. “We found that except for the upper-level flow, the agreement between the models is not good. Moreover, none of the models compares well with actual observations.” · I don’t know the details of what this person is alleging about weakness of climate models. As Kramer notes, models of Arctic melting did not foresee the scale of ice loss last summer, and the shared error of existing Arctic climate models was that they were too conservative. · In this context we should be planning and preparing for further major shifts that Mother Nature will throw at us. Research into geoengineering options is a core agenda for climate stabilization. 5. “One person in the Physics Today story said that geoengineering may result in changes in various weather patterns, but nobody knows what the changes are going to be and how they will affect the climate system.” · With my proposal, the effects of cooling the Gulf Stream by large scale algae production in the Gulf of Mexico sit within big stable physical parameters of ocean currents, which are many times bigger in flow than rivers and can be measured and modeled within a simplified linear framework of the world ocean. · A good model of the heat flow from the Atlantic to the North Pole is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Golfstream.jpg · Detail on the currents in the Gulf of Mexico is at http://www.texaspelagics.com/GOMocean.html · Questions on feasibility and impact of cooling the Gulf Stream include 1. How much area in the Gulf of Mexico would need to be covered by algae farms in order to cool the Gulf Stream by x%? 2. Would this cooling slow the melting of the Arctic? 3. Would cooling the Gulf Stream have negative impacts? 4. If Gulf Stream water were cooled and sunk to join the deep cold south-flowing current in the Atlantic, both before and after it passes through the Gulf of Mexico, would this reduced current power of the Gulf Stream mean less Atlantic warm water would push its way into the Arctic? 5. How would reduced displacement of cold polar water by the Gulf Stream reduce Arctic heating? 6. What would be the possible effect of this change on the climate in Europe and the eastern USA which are warmed by the Gulf Stream? · These are scientific questions which would only become active if a method to achieve them appeared practical, as I suggest is possible. Scientific research should have good order of magnitude answers for these questions. 6. “If the warming in the Arctic is a big event to mitigate, then it will require a significant “geoengineering” effort. To me, that means significant changes will occur elsewhere. Who can say whether those changes will be less serious than those taking place now?” · In my algae farming proposal, the possible changes elsewhere are clearer than in atmospheric approaches to geoengineering, because the proposed change involves a direct reversal of the anthropogenic heating of the Gulf Stream, an effort to return to a previous stable situation, and a direct reduction of the destabilizing change brought by the warmer current. · A slight cooling of the Gulf Stream would have positive Arctic benefits, given the sixty trillion dollar price tag put on possible Arctic methane release. http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/cost-of-arctic-methane-release-could-be-size-of-global-economy-warn-experts Any possible harm should be assiduously investigated. 7. “How can geoengineers talk about modifying clouds and albedo when clouds are represented in the climate models as mostly linear parameterizations?Kramer’s report did not mention hurricanes, but geoengineers also propose to dissipate them. Hurricanes are unique in the climate system because they represent major self-organization.” · That is a reasonable question for solar radiation management proposals, where the change seeks to create a new equilibrium rather than return to an old one. · Directly cooling the ocean current is different from SRM, because unlike clouds and wind, the Gulf Stream has strong linearity, with a mass that is many orders of magnitude bigger than the atmosphere. · On hurricanes, cooling the Gulf of Mexico would directly reduce the tendency of warmer water to increase their power, serving as a form of insurance and prevention of more super storms. 8. “As physicists well know, self-organization occurs in dissipative systems in which energy is not conserved but instead is exchanged with the environment. Hurricanes involve huge amounts of energy. Scientists have little idea how the atmosphere and the ocean will be affected if that energy is not allowed to be exchanged.” · That criticism makes sense to me, but it is wrong to promote alarm about all efforts to geoengineer the global climate with the caricature of some King Canute-style effort to prevent energy exchange in hurricanes. 9. “I would not have a problem with geoengineering if the physics and dynamics of the climate system were well known. Climate scientists have a good idea of the large-scale flow of ocean currents, but detailed measurements are not available.” · Yes, and it is precisely this scientific “good idea of the large scale flow of ocean currents” that serves ocean currents well to be a primary mechanism for climate stabilization. · My proposal seeks to stabilise the global climate through a method that is safe and scaleable, funded by produced commodities including food, fuel, fabric and fertilizer, and targeted to the protection of biodiversity by cooling the ocean and reducing its acidity. · My rough estimate is that algae farms on 2% of the world ocean would be sufficient to sequester enough carbon to match total human emissions. 10. “They know the basic physics of cloud formation and its thermodynamics but do not fully understand detailed cloud microphysics or the complex connections between climate and ecosystems. And with complex nonlinear systems, details are important. So we need to make an effort to improve our understanding of our climate system and its components before we try to operate on it.” · A good point, that much better detailed knowledge is needed before climate modification can be attempted. Again, this comment implies there is no linearity in the global climate, when in fact there is a lot, including the paths of the big ocean currents and the tendency of CO2 emissions to cause a greenhouse effect. · Knowledge of the boundaries of climate linearity can best be gained in the context of piloting a specific proposal, such as cooling and cleaning the Gulf of Mexico. This could prove a safe and profitable climate change response with low risk and numerous large co-benefits including commercially competitive food and fuel production, cleaner and cooler water, more fish and biodiversity, weaker hurricanes and reduced ocean acidity. 11. “We can engineer a car or a plane because we know the underlying physics of motion, combustion, and flight, and we understand the role of every component. Can geoengineers say the same about climate?” · Obviously the global climate is chaotic in its weather, but it has a complex ordered stability as well. For example the thermohaline circulation of the world ocean forms a global conveyor belt which is reasonably well known to science. · The behavior of ocean currents, the biggest stable feature of our planetary climate, can be predicted with a reasonable margin of error, including under changed inputs such as a cooler Gulf Stream. · Dr Tsonis is saying he does not think the same predictability can be seen in proposals to induce changes in the stratosphere. To me that illustrates that direct SRM is primarily an emergency response, a short term method to prevent catastrophic Arctic ice loss while we work out how to reduce CO2 ppm level. I see a focus on the reduction of ocean current temperature through industrial algae farming as a better long term approach than solar radiation management, combining the heat reduction advantages of SRM with the CO2 removal method of storing carbon in algae, and directly impacting to protect ocean biodiversity and make the unwanted heat energy of the seas usable as commodities including electricity and liquid fuel. Robert Tulip

Algae Economics - Could ocean based algae production be profitable? Yes. Algae production today is not competitive against fossil fuels. My proposal will research the following cost factors to drive down costs. Energy: Pumping in land based PBRs and raceway ponds uses fossil fuels. My proposal will use free pumping energy from ocean tide, wave and current, extracted from fresh waterbags. Materials: Algae is now used to make bioplastic. My proposal will research how produced algae can make fabric as a basis for system replication, including using the high pressure of sinking algae to the deep ocean. Operating costs: Scaling up to large scale will require automation to minimise labour input. The proposed systems aim to maximise simplicity, in methods with strong potential for computer based measurement and management. Algae yield of 20 grams dry weight per metre per day would produce 7000 tons of algae per square kilometre per year. This yield is likely to rapidly increase with intensive industrial production, but this is a reasonable starting point for rough cost assumptions. At one dollar per kilogram, 20g/day is worth $7.30 per square meter per year. The challenge is to bring production costs down to make this $7/m value economic. As a rough guide to plastic price, LLDPE, Linear Low Density Polyethylene, costs about USD $2/kg, enabling thickness of one millimetre at cost of $2 per square metre. The questions include how much fabric is needed, what strength and type, ability to use algae as plastic input, and whether research and development could achieve a feasible cost structure.