Skip navigation
12comments
Share conversation: Share via:

Climate Colab

Aug 6, 2014
12:25

Member


1 |
Share via:
We found this proposal genuinely ambitious in scope and could have large impacts if implemented. It could be a game changer. However, we found the proposal hard to follow and missing how key challenges will be addressed. For example, a pilot with 10 km2 will probably require international cooperation. It is not clear from the current description on how to achieve the author's vision, specifically, the technical and (long-term) environmental feasibility. We're intrigued by this idea, however to advance to the next round, the author will need to revise their proposal so that it is more straight-forward and includes how it will be achieved given real-world constraints. The feasibility of this proposal is unclear to the Judges -- please include a path to realizing the concept in a plausible way. Good luck!

Michael Hayes

Aug 8, 2014
07:33

Member


2 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Below is a response posted on the 'US Government' Marine BECCS proposal site. A Google Doc version, with operational links, can be viewed at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1acQkkyOKrbovpYr2lcArbCSNKl1rFDA0GgSG_MJayXU/edit A specific response to this proposals' comments will be posted 8/9/14. Thank you for the specific nature of your feedback. Michael [CC] "1) We would like to challenge the author to improve the accuracy of and better clarify the role that the US would play in international governance of an energy industry innovation such as this. Why is U.S. government action necessary and what opposition do actors in the U.S. have to overcome to act?". [MH 1] The 'Long View' Necessity of USG Leadership on Governance: The first point of fact which is important to keep in mind is that the international governance issue is clear on the point that mariculture is an existing and legitimate large scale industry which is currently in no need of high level treaty modifications. In short, there are no currently pressing international governance issues on the IMBECS Protocol table...for now. However, the potential for a free-for-all, destructive and disjointed exploitation of the oceanic deserts is plausible without a focused development of cogent cooperation between all actors using MBECS technology within the oceanic commons. Early prevention of abuse is far more cost effective than mitigation, for all concerned. Although mariculture is currently a large/global industry, the scale, marine resource management and production standardization that the IMBECS Protocol proposal is attempting to establish can be viewed as a 'new-ish' global industry which has the benefit of possibly being able to achieve an international level of cooperative governance before large scale invested interests are established. International standards for vast scale marine biomass cultivation can be and should be established as soon as possible and done so through the use of existing treaty language and intent concerning the protection of the oceanic environment. All parties can afford to take the 'Long View' on environmental mitigation priorities and practices if they currently are not dependent on existing profits from established 'business as usual' priorities and practices. [MH 2] The Strategic Intergovernmental Necessity of USGs Governance Leadership for an IMBECS Protocol Initiative: In the debate concerning intergovernmental governance of global warming mitigation efforts, the issue of authority or 'lagitimacy' is paramount and the USG does offer the highest level of STEM 'legitimacy' within the CoP. Ignoring the recommendations of the IPCCC WG3 (mitigation), concerning the appropriateness of terrestrial bio-energy with carbon capture and sequestration (BECCS), would be ethically contrary to the general efforts of the USG in maintaining 'legitimate' leadership at the CoP level. Marine based BECCS (i.e. MBECS) offers a path for the USG to follow the current WG3 recommendation, concerning the value of mitigating global warming through terrestrial BECCS, while avoiding many of the STEM and economic limiting factors currently recognized within terrestrial BECCS. [MH] 3] Initiating Actions: The action(s) which the USG can apply, to empirically move forward on an IMBECS like protocol, are within the existing authority of the administration. Congressional approval for funding of an MBECS like 'research instillation' (i.e. commercial class MBECS prototype work), is extant through multiple grant, loan and fuel purchase programs related to: Energy Security through Renewable Energy Development Climate Change Mitigation Scientific Investigation Economic Expansion Food/Water Security Further, and most importantly, the approval of the IRS 501 (c) (3) division, in approving the 'mission statement' of the proposed IMBECS Foundation, is a high priority as the mission statement is the core guidance for all (US) advocates/actors. The key legal issue will be the definition of the term 'unrelated business income' (“UBI” pg. 81). The phrase of 'unrelated business' is largely defined by IRS approval of the scope (i.e. business model) crafted within the mission statement. With Administration level support for both the mission statement and inter-agency attention to the start-up level organizational legal/structural necessities of an IMBECS like initiative, the initiating organizational actions can be accomplished within a few weeks/months. [MH 4] Opposition Management: 4.1) Intellectual Property Management: Most of the major FF players (and other actors) have already invested significant sums of R&D capital within the 'biomass' field and have yet to develop the scale of production needed for biofuels to be truly competitive beyond regional FF markets. The IMBECS paradigm would be a market for all related intellectual property as the MBECS production means and methods opens up vast (global scale) and environmentally sustainable levels of biomass production. And, as extreme efficiencies, along with scale, are required for profitable biomass operations, electing to pool together the related IP, within an internationally focused non-profit franchise structure (i.e. IMBECS Foundation), provides the IP owners with the largest royalty level profit potential. In short, small slices of large scale pies are preferable to large slices of non-existent/small pies. 4.2) Trading Carbon Negative Biofuel for FFs; The FF Reserve Owners Advantage: Trading MBECS generated carbon negative biofuel for 'in situ' FF reserves, at a profitable level to the FF reserve owners, does reduce expected 'opposition' from reserve owners as few owners have a fundamental level interest between utilizing biofuel or FFs so long as profits and dependability/predictability of supplies are of equivalent value to the reserve owner. Beyond using the ownership of the physical FF reserve for 'un-conventional business' objectives, most strictly profit oriented and directed reserve owners have no intrinsic interest between biofuel and FFs. If all 'profit/supply issues' are equal, why should they? [CC2] "2) We also felt we lacked the context of feasibility or data to back up its impact on emissions reductions. It would also help to narrow the steps that need to be taken to specific actions that the federal government/federal agencies will need to take to facilitate MBECS ". [MH 5] Feasibility and Emissions Reduction: 5.1) The core marine engineering technology: The use of large scale offshore floating tank farms dates back to the 1970s primarily in relationship with Middle Eastern offshore petroleum crude storage/tanker loading facilities. The basic MBECS floating tank farm concept/technology is currently available to any actor. Additional marine technology will be incorporated and, when appropriate, new technology will be developed/acquired and deployed based upon the potential contribution of the new technology to the mission. 5.2) The core algal cultivation technology: The current algal biofuel production output averages can be extrapolated for large diameter (5') IMBECS bio-reactors (tanks). The majority of algal cultivation efforts will be within current industry standards. However, exploration of alternative cultivation means and methods, such as 'Dark Cultivation' (i.e. REDUCTION OF CARBON DIOXIDE COUPLED WITH THE OXYHYDROGEN REACTION IN ALGAE) will be of contentious interest to the IMBECS Foundation. 5.3) The emissions reduction factor: A number of peer reviewed papers are available on this issue. A prominent paper is: "Pilot-scale data provide enhanced estimates of the life cycle energy and emissions profile of algae biofuels produced via hydrothermal liquefaction." Liu X1, Saydah B, Eranki P, Colosi LM, Greg Mitchell B, Rhodes J, Clarens AF. Abstract Life cycle assessment (LCA) has been used widely to estimate the environmental implications of deploying algae-to-energy systems even though no full-scale facilities have yet to be built. Here, data from a pilot-scale facility using hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL) is used to estimate the life cycle profiles at full scale. Three scenarios (lab-, pilot-, and full-scale) were defined to understand how development in the industry could impact its life cycle burdens. HTL-derived algae fuels were found to have lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than petroleum fuels. Algae-derived gasoline had significantly lower GHG emissions than corn ethanol. Most algae-based fuels have an energy return on investment between 1 and 3, which is lower than petroleum biofuels. Sensitivity analyses reveal several areas in which improvements by algae bioenergy companies (e.g., biocrude yields, nutrient recycle) and by supporting industries (e.g., CO2 supply chains) could reduce the burdens of the industry. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. The MBECS biofuel emissions reduction would be in-line with the above observations. CC 3) We'd also like to see a better attempt at identifying funding. An R&D need of $750 million is untenable for all but the most popular ideas, especially in a time of constrained budgets. [MH 6] The primary objective of the early stage empirical development is providing proof of concept concerning large scale tank farm fabrication, deployment and operations within real world conditions (without on board bio-crude refinement and only basic cultivation). This can be achieved through the use of a relatively small (0.50 km2) IMBECS offshore platform. In brief, that scale of proof of concept can be attained within a $30M budget. The commercial level operation would be far cheaper as there will be no 'development related expenditures'. The capital investment return goal of the MBECS proposal is to provide a 7 yr. amortization schedule.

Mark Capron

Aug 11, 2014
11:48

Member


3 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Marine BECCS proposes a whole new industry with many of the same advantages and issues as Ocean Forestry (See Global Plan – Reversing Climate Change with Ocean-healing Seaweed Ecosystems). Thoughts on Judges’ comments: 1. International cooperation hurdle – The fact that international cooperation is a challenge is a good indication this proposal has the scale needed to address Climate Change. Only proposals with small impacts won’t require international cooperation. This concern is also ironic because Climate CoLab’s mission is to change Industry away from Business as Usual. Business as Usual proceeds more as international competition than international cooperation. Note all the countries competing to claim Arctic Ocean oil and gas resources as the ice melts. Note the Canada telling the United States that tar sands oil will be burned with or without the Keystone Pipeline. More important, the first few million km2 operations will likely be within one country’s Exclusive Economic Zone: Fiji’s bays, Pacific Island lagoons, the Gulf of California, the Salton Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, (if we implement the Comments 3 & 4 version of Adaptation – Stop Groundwater Plan – Save $8 Billion), etc. 2. Environmental Feasibility at scale – The fact that long-term environmental feasibility is a concern is a good indication this proposal has the scale needed to address Climate Change. Even small-scale Industries like wind energy have long-term environmental issues at the necessary scale. At the necessary scale, wind energy changes global wind patterns, ocean wind energy changes the movement of nutrients in coastal waters, etc. Everything humans do at the necessary scale comes with questions on long-term environmental sustainability. At least the Marine BECCS has a scientific basis suggesting its long-term environmental sustainability is possible. Compare Marine BECCS to Business as Usual with associated ocean acidification and all the short- and long-term concerns which Climate CoLab seeks to address. Climate CoLab as an opportunity here to demonstrate how to apply precautionary principles in a manner which does not favor Business as Usual. 3. Technical Feasibility at scale – Marine BECCS is several whole new Industries to completely replace fossil fuels and even reduce CO2 concentrations. While Climate CoLab’s general theme is in the “box” of reduce emissions. Marine BECCS is in a larger “box” of “reduce concentrations” which encompasses the smaller “box” of “reduce emissions.” As a suggestion of several whole new Industries in the larger “box”, one should anticipate the need to “learn by doing” on many of the sub-industries (component processes). When the fossil oil industry began, oil beneath the oceans was not even considered as “reserves” because the technology was not available. Oil and gas in shale plays only recently entered the “reserves” because hydraulic fracturing became economic. Similarly for tar sands oil. Like most industries the fossil fuel industry started with the low-hanging fruit and worked its way up the tree. Climate CoLab seeks to inspire more “thinking ahead” than typical when starting new industries. In addition, the urgency of Climate Change issues suggests humanity should “leap right into the deep water”. We should work out the technical details of both Marine BECCS and Ocean Forestry as if our survival depended on it. 400 ppm of CO2 already dooms us to 10-20 meters of sea level rise over a few centuries (and similarly large disasters from other effects of humanity’s geologically sudden emission of greenhouse gases). Thinking ahead, humanity does not have the luxury of growing the capabilities of Marine BECCS over a century. As you review Marine BECCS, please consider all the information available for Ocean Forestry. The proposals are both ocean-based and offer full-scale concentrations reductions. The Ocean Forests are designed such that the economics should favor an ocean-healing ecosystem. Marine BECCS is more of a minimal impact tank-farming of microalgae. Both proposals require substantial research, which should not prevent “learn by doing.” The following is a discussion of the kinds of science anticipated for Ocean Forests. The “Industry” judges should review the following, the Global Plan – Reversing Climate Change with Ocean-healing Seaweed Ecosystems, and the links within both proposals. Ocean Research Infrastructure in 2030 with Ocean Forestry The National Research Council’s Critical Infrastructure for Ocean Research and Societal Needs in 2030 (Report) recommends funding future ocean research infrastructure primarily based on the anticipated societal benefit of the research. The Report diagrams the links between ocean infrastructure, scientific research, relevant societal objectives, and benefits with achieving these objectives. We (all 7 billion of us) have the opportunity to go beyond “research providing benefits” by envisioning a new ocean ecosystem. Like most natural ecosystems it would harness sunlight and photosynthesis and work with the conditions available in our oceans. Most oceans are nutrient deserts, not because there is no nutrient input, but because the nutrients sink below the photosynthesis zone too quickly. If our research enables us to capture and recycle nutrients quickly, our new ecosystem could sustain biodiversity and primary productivity in what are now nutrient deserts. If our research enables us to extract the carbon while recycling the nutrients, our new ecosystem could provide renewable energy and sequestration ready carbon indefinitely. If our new ecosystem is designed with research infrastructure, research and ecosystem improve synergistically. Our new ecosystem will represent a quantum jump in how humans care for and research oceans. For the past million years, humans have taken from ocean resources as hunter-gatherers or miners. Within the last few decades we have been trying single species feed-lots with the same issues as terrestrial feed lots. Our ocean research infrastructure has developed from our hunter-gatherer perspective. In this new ecosystem, research is not an afterthought. Research generates our energy and food producing ecosystem. Our energy and food producing ecosystem funds more research. It should be possible to arrange our new research-food-energy-biodiversity-ecosystem like a managed forest. In an ocean forest, primary productivity and biodiversity develop naturally while we extract a small portion of the sun’s energy as a gas or liquid fuel. The ecosystem will have human components, connections, transport systems and the like which are ideal platforms for research sensors. As the ecosystem expands, income from the sustainable products funds instrumenting huge volumes of the ocean. Ocean Forestry Research Opportunities Ocean Foresters, December 2012 None of the research opportunities mentioned below are their own islands. Everything is relative to everything else. The questions apply to the whole ecosystem. For example, the nutrient recycling has to grow an ocean forest that can be harvested and processed in order to return nutrients for more forest growth. Ocean Forestry is explained by Dr. Antoine N’Yeurt in “Negative Carbon via Ocean Afforestation” available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957582012001206. Ecosystem research opportunities What are the interconnections and interrelationships of all the questions below? Can we map all the possible large-scale OCEAN FORESTRY locations with overlays of complementary and competing interests for the marine resources (transportation, hunting-gathering, oil mining, etc) Legal and Global Policy research opportunities The OCEAN FORESTRY ecosystem can be an active marine sanctuary where solar energy powers the recycling of seaweed growing nutrients. The growing seaweed counteracts ocean acidification by pulling CO2 out of the ocean rapidly. The tiny shell creatures in passive marine sanctuaries are already dissolving and are doomed to extinction. Their death means the slow death (this century) of passive marine sanctuaries without some form of intervention. (We could confirm the locally lower pH by studying the Sargasso Sea.) Might OCEAN FORESTRY ecosystems be protected as active marine sanctuaries where the agencies operating the active sanctuary manage the fishing, farming, and forestry rights? How else to manage food production from the OCEAN FORESTRY ecosystem for millennia? Is this best done with transferrable quotas? Do OCEAN FORESTRY ecosystems in the active marine sanctuary role need liability insurance or protection from thieves? Suppose thousands of tons of seaweed and trapped fish wash up on an island beach. Should the OCEAN FORESTRY operator compensate the island tourism industry? Or does the island beneficially salvage the “escaped” OCEAN FORESTRY products with or without compensating the OCEAN FORESTRY? Microbial research opportunities related to anaerobic digestion How do the rate and completeness of ocean anaerobic bacterial digestion on seaweed at ocean conditions differ from the terrestrial situation? Are the Migliore results for digesting seaweed in higher-salinity-than-ocean water universal? (Migliore G., Alisi C., Sprocati A.R., Massi E., Ciccoli R., Lenzi M., Wang A., Cremisini C., (2012) "Anaerobic digestion of macroalgal biomass and sediments sourced from the Orbetello Lagoon, Italy", Biomass and Bioenergy 42 69-77) Are there “ideal” temperatures for ocean anaerobic digestion just as there are ideal temperatures for terrestrial anaerobic digestion? Are ocean bacteria applying different principles of molecule movement than freshwater 1-atm bacteria for anaerobic digestion? Existing research at 1-atm with freshwater suggests that higher concentrations of dissolved gas products reduce the rate of gas production. Perhaps a higher dissolved gas concentration leaves the gas molecules lingering on the cell wall longer? That is, the final rate-limiting step is the conversion of dissolved gas to gas. Vigorous agitation and lower pressure (a partial vacuum) result in a 600% increase in the reaction rate. (Finhey and Evans, Anaerobic Digestion-the Rate Limiting Process and the Nature of Inhibition, Science, 1975) Ocean pressures allow us to easily operate in a situation where the CH4 is at dissolution equilibrium, but the CO2, H2S, and perhaps others are at far higher than 1-atm concentrations while still far less than equilibrium concentrations. (Trost, US Patent 5,651,890, July 29, 1997). If the transfer of CH4 from dissolved to gas is rate limiting, will a gas stripping molecule speed the rate of CH4 production? Trost, US Patent 5,681,890, 1997, found that the introduction of liquid propane into 1-atm, freshwater anaerobic digestion in amounts of 6 to 15% by volume of the biogas increases the biogas production rate substantially. This research was limited to the 1-atm situation where the propane initially flashes to a gas and is then dissolved from the gas bubbles. Propane and other “gases” and materials may offer more insights into molecule movement across the cell wall when the material is dissolved directly from its liquid or solid state because of the higher pressure. Will relatively higher concentrations of dissolved bioCO2 cause the more dissolved bioCO2 to be converted to bioCH4? That is, will the microbes produce relatively more bioCH4 and less bioCO2 under ocean conditions? Seawater offers a substantial buffer to the lowering pH effects of increased dissolved CO2. However, ocean bacteria may have evolved conversion to CH4 as a defense against increased dissolved CO2 concentrations. How does the DNA of the ocean bacteria associated with anaerobic digestion differ from the DNA of fresh water, relatively low pressure bacteria? Fish in seawater excrete calcium carbonate pellets. Fish in fresh water do not produce calcium carbonate pellets. (Wilson et al. 2009, Contribution of Fish to the Marine Inorganic Carbon Cycle, Science) Are the bacteria in saltwater fish intestines producing dissolved CO2 and CH4? Is the dissolved bioCO2 essential to calcium carbonate production? What are the plant nutrients remaining after the gas production, after the anaerobic digestion is completed, and how might they support expanded seaweed growth? Hydrothermal processing research and development opportunities Can hydrothermal conversion be accomplished more economically with the “free” pressure of the deep ocean? (Place the equipment about 2,000 meters deep.) Macroalgae (seaweed) research opportunities How are the nutrients recycled to foster growth of macroalgae and inhibit growth of microalgae? What blend of algae makes the best ocean forest? (The best forest has the most sustainable blend of biodiversity, energy, food, and greenhouse gas reduction. It may differ depending on location, time of year, or multi-year cyclic event such as the Indian Ocean Dipole.) What algae harvesting techniques and equipment contribute to the desired ocean forest with the least energy and capital cost? (Or the best use of dissolved gas, wind, wave, solar, current, geothermal, etc. renewable energy.) Reducing the water content of the harvest may allow for smaller anaerobic digestion containers. During daylight, the water around the algae can have very high dissolved O2. The dissolved O2 is helpful for aerobic bacteria to convert the recycled ammonia to nitrate. However, dissolved O2 and nitrate must be reduced without losing significant carbon before the mass of water and algae is introduced to the anaerobic digestion container. Should the digestate be treated in a physical (or virtual) container in order to convert ammonia to nitrate before the digestate is diluted back to the ocean surface? Is any NO, N2O, or NO2 produced during the OCEAN FORESTRY nutrient recycle. If so, is there an NH4 distribution arrangement which minimizes "bad" nitrogen while quickly converting NH4 to NO3? What nutrients added to improve the anaerobic digestion process will also improve the growth of macroalgae, or the health of the fish feeding on the macroalgae, or the health of the predators on herbivores? For example we may add iron to the anaerobic digestion in order to intercept the sulfur from preferentially bonding with the hydrogen. Iron is often a lacking micronutrient for an algae forest. If the iron is capturing sulfur, will sulfur and iron concentrations increase or decrease primary productivity and biodiversity? What techniques and equipment are necessary to survive extreme weather such as tropical storms (cyclones, typhoons, hurricanes), unusual cold, or unusual hot? Is there a minimum or maximum size algal forest for optimal overall ocean health? Can we remove bioaccumulating toxics with some aquatic plant species without losing nutrients? How and why might algal forests in one ocean differ from those in another ocean? Do the different species have some of the same genes? Figure 1 – Pressure-Temperature relationship for CO2 in excess of dissolve equilibrium How do partial pressures influence the form of CO2 which is in excess of dissolution equilibrium in an anaerobic digester? Sealife and economics research opportunities Other than with Ocean Forestry, how can humanity ensure sustainable food, energy, biodiversity, while avoiding ocean acidification? Which sealife species complement the quadruple outputs? What species can be harvested while increasing biodiversity? What proportion of herbivores and predators evolves? What size should they be harvested for the best long-term ecosystem sustainability? Seeing that organisms rarely if ever stand alone, but are usually integral parts of an interwoven community, what is an appropriate target community for each oceanic region? Can we replicate or transplant already existing communities that have rich process path linking? How can we match the fish harvesting for long-term sustainability with the commercial value of each species? Is long-term biodiversity improved or harmed by occasional ecosystem “crashes?” The terrestrial analogy might be forest fires, bark beetles, or an excess of deer. In the ocean, the crash might be ocean acidification, or a pod of dolphins eat all the herbivores, or a toxic algal bloom, or a large storm sweeps the macroalgae onto a beach. Can we remove bioaccumulating toxics from the Ocean Forestry ecosystem without losing crucial quantities and types of nutrients? (Toxics: mercury from coal burning, plastic trash particles, etc.) Is there a minimum or maximum size algal forest and associated fish harvest for optimal overall ocean health? If some macro algae are diverted (outside the OCEAN FORESTRY ecosystem) to chemical and feed production, say through bio-refineries, how does this impact: biodiversity; economics; primary productivity; etc. Ocean Geophysicist research opportunities Is there more or less water evaporation from large open-ocean macroalgal forests? Higher or lower water temperatures relative to areas which remain nutrient deserts? Do large seaweed forests induce changes in ocean vertical mixing or ocean currents on either the local or the global scale? If there are changes, are those changes reinforcing or counteracting the changes induced by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases? Do large macroalgal forests induce local or global changes in atmospheric pressure and wind patterns? Are there changes in storm frequency, intensity, or waves? If so, are the changes reinforcing or counteracting the changes induced by increased concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases? Do algal forests induce micro climate effects, which are common with regular forests on land? And if so, what are these effects likely to be? (Note that large terrestrial rainforests such as the Amazon create their own rainy climate with rapid evaporation and precipitation for quick water cycling.) If Ocean Forestry is undertaken in open-ocean currents, are these currents spatially stable or predictable enough to enable efficient harvesting down-current? How far off track will afforested macroalgae be driven by storms, and will this allow efficient harvesting? How will increased greenhouse gas concentrations change the velocity of ocean currents? Can these changes be predicted to guide Forestry and harvesting? Ocean current monitoring via up-looking Doppler sonar has become commonplace as have autonomous transmitting floats and vehicles. To what extent should those employing the data (fishing fleets, OCEAN FORESTRY operators, navies) contribute to the installation and operation of data gathering? Undersea robotics research opportunities Remotely operated and autonomous underwater vehicles (AUV) have seen extensive development in recent decades, thanks to funding from the offshore oil & gas industry. However they remain focused mainly on data gathering and light repairs. Can AUV’s be enhanced to perform complex heavy ocean forestry and carbon storage operations at -1,000 meter and -3,000 meter depths? How can we extend AUV power to obtain maximum deep water operating times? Improved batteries? Liquid-to-gas CO2 expansion? Fuel cells running on stored methane and oxygen or scavenging dissolved oxygen? Mini-geothermal power plants on hot seafloor vents? Microbial fuel cells generating energy from marine snow? Inertial navigation has become cheaper and more available, but it suffers from exponential Markov drift in all 3 dimensions. What navigation recalibrating systems might be deployed for in support of deep water projects? Other – Please share any issues you foresee which need to be addressed before Ocean Forestry could be scaled-up to have climatically-significant effects with the Ocean Foresters.

Michael Hayes

Aug 12, 2014
10:54

Member


4 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Ocean Foresters, Thank you for the input and pointing out "Marine BECCS is several whole new Industries". The benefits the oceans offer us is (IMMHO) truly perpetual....if we lean to take the long view in our relationship with them. The primary focus of the IMBECS Protocol is to lay down a foundation on which we can all find, through an equitable and transparent regiment, an abundance of critical commodities both now and generations from now. I gladly stand in front of the judgment of The Ocean Foresters.

Michael Hayes

Aug 12, 2014
10:19

Member


5 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Ocean Foresters, Thank you for the input and pointing out "Marine BECCS is several whole new Industries". The benefits the oceans offer us is (IMMHO) truly perpetual....if we lean to take the long view in our relationship with them. The primary focus of the IMBECS Protocol is to lay down a foundation on which we can all find, through an equitable and transparent regiment, an abundance of critical commodities both now and generations from now. I gladly stand in front of the judgment of The Ocean Foresters.

Michael Hayes

Aug 20, 2014
05:50

Member


6 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
I actually did not repeat the above. There seems to be software 'issues' afoot. Also, the edit option seems to be deleted for all of the, supposedly, active Marine BECCS entries.

Victor Blanco

Aug 26, 2014
03:51

Member


7 |
Share via:
Great project. I wish you the best!. As I supported your proposal I would appreciate you support my proposal in Waste Management Contest, named "REACC - Recycled Debris for Adaptation to Climate Change". Regards!

Michael Hayes

Aug 27, 2014
07:28

Member


8 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
There has been additional work on fleshing out the the proposal specifically on the USG entry. I just posted the following comment about that work on the USG comment section. The text is below. Work on an updated version on the proposal is being undertaken and the document can be found at https://docs.google.com/document/d/10qLw-E9wK5FLEr4O4OhTMStX1zl-u8d_rSTyzg2-IfM/edit The title is 'USG; Lead the way to Marine Bio-Energy and Carbon Sequestration (MBECS) --------------------------------------------------------------- U.S. Government Agencies can drive the U.S. to the lead in global energy independence, climate change, mitigation and green job creation via MBECS. The Ocean Forester's suggestions are still being integrated into the document yet I'm trying to also insure and maintain focus upon the core MBECS logic. Also, the IMBECS Protocol has been submitted to the U.N. Green Climate Fund Secretariat for consideration within the Fund's initial financial framework. If the Green Climate Fund adopts an IMBECS Protocol like collaborative approach, that would be the base for a global scale GW mitigation effort (as I've hoped and worked for).

Jim Stewart

Aug 30, 2014
12:41

Member


9 |
Share via:
The judges said it well: "It could be a game changer." This project needs to be implemented immediately to save the planet from climate disaster. Thanks to Michael and the Ocean Foresters! On to victory! Jim Stewart, PhD, Physics (Yale Univ)

Robert Tulip

Sep 1, 2014
01:24

Member


10 |
Share via:
Dear Michael Congratulations for your Marine Carbon proposal. It deserves to win this MIT competition and be implemented as the critical step to stabilise the global climate. As you know I have presented closely related ideas including my CoLab Finalist proposal in 2013. I have read your proposal with considerable interest and have the following initial comments. 1. Marine carbon production can proceed in tandem with fossil fuel extraction to develop a path towards sustainable energy. The overall proposed scale of operation creates a new paradigm for climate science, with carbon cycle management replacing emission reduction as a primary goal. If we mine carbon from the air and water on a larger scale than we emit, we can keep the convenient infrastructure of existing power and transport systems. 2. We do not need to reduce emissions to quickly achieve a realistic path to climate stability. Marine carbon production can instead build on the existing economy, leveraging and catalysing the resources and interests of the energy industry rather than fighting against them. The unnecessary economic and political conflict between climate science and the fossil fuel industry is the main thing preventing practical progress towards climate stabilisation. 3. At the moment, we add carbon to the air on a scale of about a 2km cube of coal per year. Marine industrial systems can establish competitive economic ways to mine this carbon and more, recycling carbon to stabilise the global climate and rapidly drive CO2 back to Holocene levels. Marine Carbon Systems are the only way to achieve this central goal of climate stabilisation while operating within the constraints of the commercial market economy. 4. Marine systems can be even larger than the proposed IMBECS scale of operations of a million square kilometres, and can work in coastal waters as well as the deep sea deserts. NOAA estimated the pelagic areas of low surface chlorophyll as 50 million km2 in size in 2008. The whole ocean is more than 300m km2. By comparison the land area of the USA is 10m km2, or 3% as big as the world ocean. 5. If we could imagine productive industrial algae production on 3% of the world ocean, we are talking about a realistic new energy paradigm in which the problem of fossil carbon emissions becomes incidental and easily managed, and where energy becomes sustainable and abundant. This is a major new profitable industry that needs the skills and resources of the existing energy sector as its foundation. 6. Operations should start with laboratory and conceptual modelling, and then move to continental shelf locations before seeking to operate pelagically. Marine carbon systems can clean up fouled coastal locations such as the Gulf of Mexico and Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, protecting endangered ecosystems against heat, acid, nutrient and storm. More sheltered locations can test the most effective methods for deep sea operation. 7. I recommend alliance with the gas industry, for example with Chevron and Inpex on Australia’s North West Shelf. These massive projects have large quantities of waste CO2 that can be mixed with deep nutrient as a field pilot for biofuel production. 8. Marine carbon systems need simple new technology. This research and development agenda holds promise to make ocean fuel production less expensive than current fossil sources, removing the need for subsidy. Floating fabric bags of fresh water for stability, buoyancy and pumping could be a key to achieving the economies of scale required. Storage and processing of algae at the bottom of the sea offers potential to use heat and pressure to achieve low cost conversion of sunlight and nutrient into diesel and gas. There is potential to mimic the shape of marine organisms for some applications. 9. As well as fuel, food, feed, fertilizer and fabric, marine carbon systems could produce construction material for buildings and roads, and fabric for system replication at scale, as carbon storage locations superior to geosequestration of unprocessed CO2. 10. I recently put together a presentation titled "Ocean Forest Cultivation in Pacific Island Countries - Environmental and Economic Benefits and Strategies" at a Pacific Futures conference at the Australian National University, building on work of Ocean Foresters. My slides are at http://rtulip.net/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Ocean_Algae_Forests_Pacific_Research_Innovation.20640054.pdf The final slide sketches suggestions on ocean floor algae processing. 11. I would like to see the World Bank engage with this proposal. Their climate chief Rachel Kyte recently commented that we need to move beyond emission reduction into carbon system analysis, indicating receptivity to big new game changing ideas such as marine carbon systems. Robert Tulip, Resources & Energy Section, Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

Climate Colab

Sep 3, 2014
12:25

Member


11 |
Share via:
This proposal has not been advanced to the Finalists Round. While the idea is very ambitious, the judges felt it is very high level, and would need the agreement of multiple parties to get started on the proposal. The idea is very commendable, and could hold a lot of promise. However, there is a lot of inherent risk, due to the sheer number of stakeholders involved.

Michael Hayes

Oct 3, 2014
03:03

Member


12 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor
Robert, Thanks for the comments. Like most game changers, it is difficult to get past the most minor reluctance of those new to the idea. The judges comment is such a case. The 'stakeholders' in global warming mitigation is literally the number of living creatures on this planet. All of which need to be considered. Getting cooperation from key economic/policy players is best achieved by folding into the plan the needs of the FF industry during the transition to a full biofuel market as your second point and the IMBECS Protocol points out. There is no other practical way. We need to look beyond the current paradigm at both the global energy STEM level and at the human cooperation level. Unless we challenge the current envelope on both of those counts, we will fail. Best, Michael