Skip navigation
29comments
Share conversation: Share via:

Sam Carana

Feb 27, 2016
04:23

Member


1 |
Share via:

Breaking up parts of the Arctic sea ice in winter could facilitate heat transfer from the Arctic Ocean to the atmosphere, thus cooling the Arctic Ocean. Also, the icebreakers would push ice aside, thus thickening the ice, while the open tracks would refreeze, resulting in a net overall increase in ice thickness. Icebreakers could also use pipes to pump up water from lower depth where the water is warmer than just below the ice. The pumped-up water could then be added on top of the ice to thicken the ice. A project like this could be worthwhile, even if a lot of energy was needed to make it all work, as the icebreakers and pumps could be powered by hydrogen that was produced with surplus energy that was, e.g., generated at night by offshore wind turbines in the North Sea.
Cheers,
Sam Carana


Aaron Davis

Mar 8, 2016
10:20

Member


2 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor

To Sam, Good comments Thanks.  The energy it would take to homogenize the water column below the polynya could be far less than the heat drawn up from the bottom.  There are several free driving forces working here.  The diffusion force that becomes activated by a slight disturbance, like static friction holds a body fast then once it starts, dynamic friction takes over and is much less able to work against the diffusion force.  Mixing 3.2% and 3.35% salinity is like walking in a clear pond gets muddy very fast once disturbed.  The other free force is buoyancy.  Anything that reduces density in the lower layers will cause it to rise to the same density, or mix.  I don't no if you recall but early proposals recommended heating water, or sand, or anything from clean energy sources to take advantage of the fourth power law as there are no limits, short of nuclear decay maybe, to the amount of photons that can be ejected by radiation.


Aaron Davis

Mar 8, 2016
10:28

Member


3 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor

Les R MorganWhy would the shipping industry be interested in creating the conditions for more ice when their economic intrest is otherwise. Sounds like another fantasy of geoengineering.

Aaron DavisFor one the Arctic is 25% shorter than the Suez. The Arctic is not navigable unless there is a stable ice pack, or no ice at all. Since the summer ice decline, there has been the occasional cyclone like the one that came up in August 2012, during the minimum ice extent. This storm took out half the ice field over the Arctic. During this storm massive chucks of ice flew around like Styrofoam. Winter, where ice and polynyas are stable is the safest route. Now, I that I have rebutted your challenge. please either accept the burden of proof on your challenge, or Up the Support count on the proposal. Thanks

Les R MorganYou haven't rebutted me, you kinda vindicated what I said lol. I'll be interested in seeing what others say about your "proposal."

Aaron DavisLes R Morgan Come on - if they wait till there's no ice, then they deal with sunken ports and massive cyclones. The safest passage is through stable icepack. Not fair. Where is your burden of proof that Shippers will not cooperate with the 200 Nation States that demand thermal equilibrium. Ok, lets move this to the comment section on the proposal as an FAQ. No way your challenge invalidates my propos

 


Aaron Davis

Mar 8, 2016
10:54

Member


4 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor

John Compost Cossham Interesting, don't fully understand it, seems like a lot of faff for something very unproven and could so easily have the effect of mixing the water column which would help destabilise clathrates. Following so can read more accomplished science bods' responses.Aaron Davis Thanks for the comment. When 150 W m-2 leaves the homogeneous water column, ice crystals form throughout the entire column and not just the top layer. This will chill and stabilize the methane as the ice becomes fast on the bottom and shore (provided the mixing does not disturb it, which I can believe can be avoided). Don't know what faff is. Thanks for the additional requirement. The contractor shall not disturbing methane clathrates deposits.
The proof is the occurrences of natural polynyas that manage not only to stay ice free in the dynamic multi-year ice field, but also produce 10x the ice as the ice covered areas. What the purpose here would be is to create long artificial polynyas, radiating more heat to space without mucking up the 99% of the atmosphere not disturbed with ice crystal formation.
Aaron Davis 'fuss or dither' = faff. I don't think engineering a comfortable global equilibrium temp is "fuss or dither". Why do you?
Aaron Davis Please either accept the burden of proof on your challenge or up the Support count. Thanks.

 


Aaron Davis

Mar 8, 2016
10:54

Member


5 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor

John Compost Cossham Interesting, don't fully understand it, seems like a lot of faff for something very unproven and could so easily have the effect of mixing the water column which would help destabilise clathrates. Following so can read more accomplished science bods' responses.Aaron Davis Thanks for the comment. When 150 W m-2 leaves the homogeneous water column, ice crystals form throughout the entire column and not just the top layer. This will chill and stabilize the methane as the ice becomes fast on the bottom and shore (provided the mixing does not disturb it, which I can believe can be avoided). Don't know what faff is. Thanks for the additional requirement. The contractor shall not disturbing methane clathrates deposits.
The proof is the occurrences of natural polynyas that manage not only to stay ice free in the dynamic multi-year ice field, but also produce 10x the ice as the ice covered areas. What the purpose here would be is to create long artificial polynyas, radiating more heat to space without mucking up the 99% of the atmosphere not disturbed with ice crystal formation.
Aaron Davis 'fuss or dither' = faff. I don't think engineering a comfortable global equilibrium temp is "fuss or dither". Why do you?
Aaron Davis Please either accept the burden of proof on your challenge or up the Support count. Thanks.

 


Aaron Davis

Mar 8, 2016
11:12

Member


6 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor

David Petraitis Radiation of heat will not be exactly black body, but rather mixing of the different temperature of water ant the air at the surface. That heat radiation depends on the difference between the air and water. If the Arctic atmosphere is warmer than the Arctic deep water wouldn't and artificial polynya (new word for me!) absorb heat from the atmosphere? And the deepest waters are not the warmest. Here is a graph of the temperature salinity profiles. (In 1970 I was a very junior programmer at Scrips Institute of Oceanography running the computer program to generate the some of the first of these profiles, the study was profiled in Scientific American)

Aaron Davis Radiation depends mostly on temperature difference. During the polar winter, all energy is out-going. I use the modified Swinbank model for nighttime radiation cooling calculations. The winter ice extent has not declined much from 15 million sq km. Water cannot get much below 0oC, the air in the Winter is between -30 and -40. Not warm enough to hold any humidity. 4oC is the maximum density of fresh water. 0.4% difference in salinity is not that much. Remember that diffusion works with us. No, unless we encounter a very limited duration cyclone, the Arctic air does no change, nor does the wind, and natural polynyas survive moving icesheets just fine..

David Petraitis In the water column water at depth is between -1C and +2C. If the air is +10C the mixing will transport heat into the water.
David Petraitis In this case sensors and instrumentation will need to shut the mixing down. That will take energy.
David Petraitis Will the whole engineering be totally passive or will it require power for sensors and instrumentation?

Aaron Davis It will take some energy, but the ships moving through there have 100000 HP engines. The devices are very simple, but your right, sensors and controls are more complex. Remember, if these ships ran in the tropics, the heat they produce would take months to years to leave the planet. The biggest problem is soot, that melts ice in summer if we don't have enough snow. Clean energy ships would be the best, but not so much for the emissions.

David Petraitis What is the BTU Equiv needed for manufacture and installation? How long will it take to offset this? EROEI

Aaron Davis The first project, where most of the non-recurring engineering would take place is in Hudson Bay. Shipping to Churchill, the only deep Eastern Canada port, other than in the Great Lakes, saves 10% of all cargo. If we could keep that route open, then the other 3 Arctic passages and spurs to Arctic communities would quickly follow.

David Petraitis BTW I am inclined to think that there are no solutions to this predicament, But I salute your need to be an activist in the face of NTHE rather, like me more quietist, inner and relationally focused.

Aaron Davis I think I have rebutted your challenges. Please Support the proposal. You can always retract later. Don't give up. This has a higher probability of working than sending a trillion robots to L1, and will cost a lot less and be paid for by commerce.


Aaron Davis

Mar 8, 2016
11:12

Member


7 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor

David Petraitis Radiation of heat will not be exactly black body, but rather mixing of the different temperature of water ant the air at the surface. That heat radiation depends on the difference between the air and water. If the Arctic atmosphere is warmer than the Arctic deep water wouldn't and artificial polynya (new word for me!) absorb heat from the atmosphere? And the deepest waters are not the warmest. Here is a graph of the temperature salinity profiles. (In 1970 I was a very junior programmer at Scrips Institute of Oceanography running the computer program to generate the some of the first of these profiles, the study was profiled in Scientific American)

Aaron Davis Radiation depends mostly on temperature difference. During the polar winter, all energy is out-going. I use the modified Swinbank model for nighttime radiation cooling calculations. The winter ice extent has not declined much from 15 million sq km. Water cannot get much below 0oC, the air in the Winter is between -30 and -40. Not warm enough to hold any humidity. 4oC is the maximum density of fresh water. 0.4% difference in salinity is not that much. Remember that diffusion works with us. No, unless we encounter a very limited duration cyclone, the Arctic air does no change, nor does the wind, and natural polynyas survive moving icesheets just fine..

David Petraitis In the water column water at depth is between -1C and +2C. If the air is +10C the mixing will transport heat into the water.
David Petraitis In this case sensors and instrumentation will need to shut the mixing down. That will take energy.
David Petraitis Will the whole engineering be totally passive or will it require power for sensors and instrumentation?

Aaron Davis It will take some energy, but the ships moving through there have 100000 HP engines. The devices are very simple, but your right, sensors and controls are more complex. Remember, if these ships ran in the tropics, the heat they produce would take months to years to leave the planet. The biggest problem is soot, that melts ice in summer if we don't have enough snow. Clean energy ships would be the best, but not so much for the emissions.

David Petraitis What is the BTU Equiv needed for manufacture and installation? How long will it take to offset this? EROEI

Aaron Davis The first project, where most of the non-recurring engineering would take place is in Hudson Bay. Shipping to Churchill, the only deep Eastern Canada port, other than in the Great Lakes, saves 10% of all cargo. If we could keep that route open, then the other 3 Arctic passages and spurs to Arctic communities would quickly follow.

David Petraitis BTW I am inclined to think that there are no solutions to this predicament, But I salute your need to be an activist in the face of NTHE rather, like me more quietist, inner and relationally focused.

Aaron Davis I think I have rebutted your challenges. Please Support the proposal. You can always retract later. Don't give up. This has a higher probability of working than sending a trillion robots to L1, and will cost a lot less and be paid for by commerce.


Aaron Davis

Mar 8, 2016
11:41

Member


8 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor

David Petraitis I distinctly do not feel you have given a rebuttal. I wasn't sure my questions needed rebutting, but apparently you do. I think you have given a gloss. I do NOT support your project.

Aaron Davis I'll take your "gloss" critique as a complaint about style, rather than substance.


Aaron Davis

Mar 8, 2016
11:41

Member


9 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor

David Petraitis I distinctly do not feel you have given a rebuttal. I wasn't sure my questions needed rebutting, but apparently you do. I think you have given a gloss. I do NOT support your project.

Aaron Davis I'll take your "gloss" critique as a complaint about style, rather than substance.


Tommy Barlow

Mar 13, 2016
01:16

Member


10 |
Share via:

If powered by green energy, it would be easy to test this on a small scale, and real soon, to test its pros and cons. 
If something can be tested on a small scale, to see how it performs, then it should be explored A.S.A.P because the cost of not finding solutions would be in the millions of trillions of dollars ... and that is if we are lucky.
Let me reiterate:
Anything that is relatively cheap to try on a small scale A.S.A.P., should be tried, and this concept could also teach us a lot about the Arctic ocean and sea-ice inter-actions, if tried on a small scale to test it out. Well worth it. We would learn a lot about the Arctic Ocean and could be a viable way to cool and freeze warmer, saltier water, and increase Albedo in summer. 
Tommy Barlow
Vermont.
U.S.A.


Matthew Nylander

Apr 5, 2016
09:02

Member


11 |
Share via:

I had the same idea as you. But I came around to it a different way.

I was trying to figure out how to stop hurricanes, but I came up with a unique idea in the process.

Watch this video link. It is for a project I did 2 years ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUmhwCGcKyM

The device I talk about would actually work for your theory. I had the same notion as you for expanding the ice, but as putting them on the periphery of the ice to encourage ice formation, rather than breaking up the actual ice to perpetuate the heat transfer.

My email is matt.nylander@gmail.com

I have 3 pages from my journal I want to show you, if you want. I think we could talk alot about this.

Let me know.

Matthew Nylander

 


Matthew Nylander

Apr 5, 2016
09:06

Member


12 |
Share via:

I had the same idea as you. But I came around to it a different way.

I was trying to figure out how to stop hurricanes, but I came up with a unique idea in the process.

Watch this video link. It is for a project I did 2 years ago. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUmhwCGcKyM

The device I talk about would actually work for your theory. I had the same notion as you for expanding the ice, but as putting them on the periphery of the ice to encourage ice formation, rather than breaking up the actual ice to perpetuate the heat transfer.

My email is matt.nylander@gmail.com

I have 3 pages from my journal I want to show you, if you want. I think we could talk alot about this.

Let me know.

Matthew Nylander

 


Aaron Davis

Apr 6, 2016
02:44

Member


13 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor

Matthew,

Thanks for your comment, but apart from mixing the thermocline, I don't see much similarity.  Actually suppressing hurricanes might do more harm than good since these storms move a lot of energy from the ocean into the atmosphere where it then radiates to space mostly at night, while reflecting solar energy energy during the day.


Please feel free to adapt any of my drawings of mixing devices with my permission.


Good luck, Aaron

 


Aaron Davis

Apr 6, 2016
02:44

Member


14 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor

Matthew,

Thanks for your comment, but apart from mixing the thermocline, I don't see much similarity.  Actually suppressing hurricanes might do more harm than good since these storms move a lot of energy from the ocean into the atmosphere where it then radiates to space mostly at night, while reflecting solar energy energy during the day.


Please feel free to adapt any of my drawings of mixing devices with my permission.


Good luck, Aaron

 


Aaron Davis

Apr 6, 2016
09:22

Member


15 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor

Matthew,
Thanks again for your comment. 
Regarding your hurricane suppression idea, is this the same idea published and abandoned by the Intellectual Ventures Invention Network (IVINs program)?  If so, what was your experience?
I am curious about your statement.
"I had the same notion as you for expanding the ice, but as putting them on the periphery of the ice to encourage ice formation, rather than breaking up the actual ice to perpetuate the heat transfer."  Is the notion you refer to the thermocline mixing devices?  Speaking of these devices, my preliminary patent search came up with nothing except the Electro Dialysis devices, but these were offered in conjunction with Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) intended to lift deeper cold water cold water to the surface.  My application is just the opposite.  My application is designed to lift warm saltier water at depth to homogenize the water column, thereby forcing either the fusion of the entire column or maintaining an ice free channel during the polar winter.
Speaking of your application, I do not see how implementing these devices at the edge of ice pack could increase ice extent.  It is precisely the warmer saltier water at depth that melts ice during the polar winter in features called polynyas.  During the polar day, the sun energy is absorbed at the upper layer at a rate of about 500 W m-2.  So, I guess I do not understand how dilution with deeper water can increase ice extend.
Thanks again for your comment.  It shows that I may need to be more explicit in describing the nighttime radiant cooling aspects of the concept.  In no way am I suggesting a convection, conduction, or advection mechanism to reject heat to space, and build ice thickness during the winter to create more resilient polar ice extent during the summer.
Best regards,Aaron


Aaron Davis

Apr 6, 2016
09:22

Member


16 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor

Matthew,
Thanks again for your comment. 
Regarding your hurricane suppression idea, is this the same idea published and abandoned by the Intellectual Ventures Invention Network (IVINs program)?  If so, what was your experience?
I am curious about your statement.
"I had the same notion as you for expanding the ice, but as putting them on the periphery of the ice to encourage ice formation, rather than breaking up the actual ice to perpetuate the heat transfer."  Is the notion you refer to the thermocline mixing devices?  Speaking of these devices, my preliminary patent search came up with nothing except the Electro Dialysis devices, but these were offered in conjunction with Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC) intended to lift deeper cold water cold water to the surface.  My application is just the opposite.  My application is designed to lift warm saltier water at depth to homogenize the water column, thereby forcing either the fusion of the entire column or maintaining an ice free channel during the polar winter.
Speaking of your application, I do not see how implementing these devices at the edge of ice pack could increase ice extent.  It is precisely the warmer saltier water at depth that melts ice during the polar winter in features called polynyas.  During the polar day, the sun energy is absorbed at the upper layer at a rate of about 500 W m-2.  So, I guess I do not understand how dilution with deeper water can increase ice extend.
Thanks again for your comment.  It shows that I may need to be more explicit in describing the nighttime radiant cooling aspects of the concept.  In no way am I suggesting a convection, conduction, or advection mechanism to reject heat to space, and build ice thickness during the winter to create more resilient polar ice extent during the summer.
Best regards,Aaron


James Lau

Apr 13, 2016
11:48

Member


17 |
Share via:

This is a well prepared contest entry. I hope you can help me with my entry in the energy supply contest. I think phasing out all fossil fuel use with OTEC (ocean thermal energy conversion) is a more direct way to solve both the energy and global warming problem. Please read my entry (or use my email address jameslau2@gmail.com) to see if you are interested in my proposal and join me in adding proper pictures into my entry. I am a physicist so that I fully agree with adjusting the radiation budget for global temperature engineering. The comments you already have also feel uncomfortable with the tricky idea.

I have seen the NOAA graph relating historic global temperature with carbon dioxide level. I notice a serious problem. The graph with CO2 level from 280 to 200 ppm corresponding to temperature change of 10 C. This is 12.5 times higher than the commonly accepted relationship of 100 ppm causing 1 C temperature increase (change). This large discrepancy make me doubt the validity of the NOAA data.

The methods you mention seems to have less details than my OTEC proposal. I hope you will agree with me after I have the chance to show you more of my files.


Aaron Davis

Apr 14, 2016
08:03

Member


18 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor

Thank you for your comment.

If you read about the existing implementations of OTEC you will see that most of the energy is used in drawing up cold water to where the temperature difference can be used to run a low-pressure turbine.  Unfortunately, even after over 100 years of playing with the OTEC idea only a modest level of net energy has been produced at a very high cost in maintenance and equipment relative to alternatives.  The Japanese and Hawaiian implementations are strictly for demonstration. In my research, did find a patent on using electrodialysis to remove salt from the deep cold ocean to reduce density and help lift the cold water to the surface, but I have not seen any implementation data.

It is important to note that in the Arctic Winter, it is the surface water that is colder than the deeper water (the reverse of existing OTEC installations) so while lifting the warmer water still takes energy, it is not as much as at lower latitudes. Once at the surface, the difference in temperature could, and probably should be used to drive an electrical current except for the problem with entropy forcing liquids into the solid state as temperature drop and pressures increase.  So, the first objective is to keep the Arctic ocean surface ice-free in narrow, river-like channels, so that energy from deeper warm currents can be rejected to space.  At this point, it may be necessary use this flow of energy for useful work, like lighting and heating the dark sky during the Arctic Winter for human habitat, and to access natural resources.  But, we always need to keep in mind the first requirement is to reject another 400 Tera-Watts to space to halt global warming and maintain a habitable planet. 

So, if you are interested in an Arctic implementation of OTEC to further human advancement in the Arctic I'd like to help.  OTEC implementation at lower latitudes is not likely to go anywhere, until other alternatives (sun, wind, fossil) are exhausted.


Regarding the NOAA chart.  I read the chart differently, with CO2 going from 180 to 280 ppm for an increase of 10oC.  I also ask how is it that CO2 at 405 has not increased the temperature more than 10oC.  One answer is that we have yet to reach equilibrium, and another is that CO2 response is not linear and that once saturation is met, additional concentration has less effect.  My take is that reduction of CO2 alone is not sufficient and an Active Thermal Control System, like on the International Space Station, is our best alternative to a very difficult and risky global adaptation.


Aaron Davis

Apr 14, 2016
08:03

Member


19 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor

Thank you for your comment.

If you read about the existing implementations of OTEC you will see that most of the energy is used in drawing up cold water to where the temperature difference can be used to run a low-pressure turbine.  Unfortunately, even after over 100 years of playing with the OTEC idea only a modest level of net energy has been produced at a very high cost in maintenance and equipment relative to alternatives.  The Japanese and Hawaiian implementations are strictly for demonstration. In my research, did find a patent on using electrodialysis to remove salt from the deep cold ocean to reduce density and help lift the cold water to the surface, but I have not seen any implementation data.

It is important to note that in the Arctic Winter, it is the surface water that is colder than the deeper water (the reverse of existing OTEC installations) so while lifting the warmer water still takes energy, it is not as much as at lower latitudes. Once at the surface, the difference in temperature could, and probably should be used to drive an electrical current except for the problem with entropy forcing liquids into the solid state as temperature drop and pressures increase.  So, the first objective is to keep the Arctic ocean surface ice-free in narrow, river-like channels, so that energy from deeper warm currents can be rejected to space.  At this point, it may be necessary use this flow of energy for useful work, like lighting and heating the dark sky during the Arctic Winter for human habitat, and to access natural resources.  But, we always need to keep in mind the first requirement is to reject another 400 Tera-Watts to space to halt global warming and maintain a habitable planet. 

So, if you are interested in an Arctic implementation of OTEC to further human advancement in the Arctic I'd like to help.  OTEC implementation at lower latitudes is not likely to go anywhere, until other alternatives (sun, wind, fossil) are exhausted.


Regarding the NOAA chart.  I read the chart differently, with CO2 going from 180 to 280 ppm for an increase of 10oC.  I also ask how is it that CO2 at 405 has not increased the temperature more than 10oC.  One answer is that we have yet to reach equilibrium, and another is that CO2 response is not linear and that once saturation is met, additional concentration has less effect.  My take is that reduction of CO2 alone is not sufficient and an Active Thermal Control System, like on the International Space Station, is our best alternative to a very difficult and risky global adaptation.


Michael Hayes

Apr 22, 2016
07:32

Member


20 |
Share via:

Aaron,

I'm having a hard time understanding where you are getting the warmer water from. 


Michael Hayes

Apr 22, 2016
07:21

Member


21 |
Share via:

Also,

Artificially upwelling water releases a significant amount of CO2. Have you addressed that and or the release of methane?

Best regards,

Michael


Filip Za???ny

Apr 26, 2016
07:11

Catalyst


22 |
Share via:

http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/arctic/what_we_do/shipping/

WWF mapping data might help to set the routes, so that no ecosystem would become endangered. 


Filip Za???ny

Apr 26, 2016
07:11

Catalyst


23 |
Share via:

http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/arctic/what_we_do/shipping/

WWF mapping data might help to set the routes, so that no ecosystem would become endangered. 


Filip Za???ny

Apr 26, 2016
07:24

Catalyst


24 |
Share via:

http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/arctic/what_we_do/shipping/

WWF mapping data might help to set the routes, so that no ecosystem would become endangered. 


Aaron Davis

Apr 28, 2016
08:14

Member


25 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor

 michael123  ​Here is the thermocline and halocline data I am referring to regarding upwelling deep water in the Arctic. Specifically temperature rises quickly from -1.5C to +1.0C in the first 200 m of depth.  To maintain liquid water however the column only needs to be mixed to constant temperature and salinity.  In such a condition ice will form on the bottom anything solid and as free floating ice crystals and the entire column would need to freeze for the surface temperature to become solid.  The temperature difference between the air and the temperature of freezing water is sufficient to reject ocean heat to space during the polar winter.  Once the surface freezes less additional ice is formed adding resistance to summer ice albedo, and less energy is lost to space. 


Artificially upwelled ocean water reduces temperature and helps stabilize methane clathrates.

Only low carbon emissions will be allowed in the arctic independent of when and where it is applied.  Nuclear and liquefied natural gas are preferred energy sources.  This proposal suggests Arctic Winter Shipping to reject waste heat from the ocean and thicken summer ice.


Ecosystems will be enhanced as more poynya habitate becomes available.  Rejecting excess heat saves the entire planet as well as the Arctic which is most effected by inadequate nighttime radiant cooling, causing extreme heat events and habitat distruction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halocline

 


Aaron Davis

Apr 28, 2016
08:58

Member


26 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor

filipzalezny
 
Agreed, shipping in the Arctic needs to be concerned about natural habitat but increasing winter polynyas should provide more habitat than shipping damages 


Aaron Davis

Apr 28, 2016
08:12

Member


27 |
Share via:
Proposal
contributor


filipzalezny and michael123  Thank you for your comments -

The thing to remember is that the Arctic is unique in that during the long night (polar-winter) the atmosphere is most transparent to thermal energy.  Liquid water cannot be less than freezing while the atmosphere is typically 30 to 40oC colder offering perhaps the best conditions to reject waste heat.  This is the real problem with global warming.  Waste heat must be rejected to maintain temperatures within a normal operating range.  I believe green house gases will saturate certain specific bands of the infrared spectrum for many 100s of years regardless of our switch to renewable energy and more efficiency.  Water vapor covers a much wider spectrum and unless we reject 12.5 ZJ of energy being absorbed by the ocean now we will confront many problems.  It's starting now and will get much worse unless we adopt policies to address the heat rejection requirement.


Simply moving heat to the ocean or the atmosphere is no longer sufficient we need to move it to space.  Radiation is the only way to do that.  Arctic Shipping in the Winter is one of the most effective approaches.  Please support this proposal and others that address this most essential problem

 

 

 


Michael Hayes

May 10, 2016
06:20

Member


28 |
Share via:

Aaron,

The infrastructure used for such an effort could use Perpetual Salt Fountains as a simplistic upwelling means. 

Mechanism for Enhanced Diffusivity in the Deep-Sea Perpetual Salt Fountain:

"The mechanism of enhanced diffusivity occurring in the deep-sea perpetual salt fountain has been investigated experimentally and numerically. Some factors which possibly contribute to the enhanced diffusivity were found to be the pipe oscillation with ocean waves and its baffled wall surface. Field experiments in the ocean (Onagawa Bay of Miyagi, Japan) and numerical simulations were performed to study and confirm the dynamics of the flow and heat transport with enhanced diffusivity occurring in upwelling deep-sea water. The agreement between the field experimental data and the numerical solutions of an oscillating-wall boundary condition imposed on the baffled pipe is encouraging, and it indicates the baffled pipe surface subject to the oscillatory motion leads to the enhanced diffusivity. The buoyancy force and then upwelling velocity can be greatly increased by the enhanced diffusivity. The dominant mechanism is the occurrence of complicated vortices and vortex shedding leading to efficient mixing and enhanced diffusion."

 


However, upwelling will release a significant amount of CO2 if the fountain is not fitted with some means to capture and utilize the CO2. This aspect of the fountain was well documented in the following paper:

An Open Ocean Trial of Controlled Upwelling Using Wave Pump Technology:

ANGELICQUE WHITE College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon KARIN BJO¨ RKMAN AND ERIC GRABOWSKI School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii RICARDO LETELIER College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon STEVE POULOS, BLAKE WATKINS, AND DAVID KARL School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, Hawaii (Manuscript received 25 November 2008, in final form 23 September 2009)

Abstract:

"In 1976, John D. Isaacs proposed to use wave energy to invert the density structure of the ocean and pump deep, nutrient-rich water into the sunlit surface layers. The basic principle is simple: a length of tubing attached to a surface buoy at the top, and a one-way valve at the bottom can be extended below the euphotic zone to act as a conduit for deep water. The vertical motion of the ocean forces the attached valve to open on the downslope of a wave and close on the upslope, thus generating upward movement of deep water to the surface ocean. Although Isaacs’s wave-powered pump has taken many forms, from energy production to aquaculture to the more recent suggestion that artificial upwelling could be used to stimulate primary productivity and carbon sequestration, the simple engineering concept remains the same. In June 2008, the authors tested a commercially available wave pump (Atmocean) north of Oahu, Hawaii, to assess the logistics of at-sea deployment and the durability of the equipment under open ocean conditions. This test was done as part of an experiment designed to evaluate a recently published hypothesis that upwelling of water containing excess phosphate (P) relative to nitrogen (N) compared to the canonical ‘‘Redfield’’ molar ratio of 16N:1P would generate a two-phased phytoplankton bloom. The end result of this field experiment was rapid delivery (,2 h for a 300-m transit) of deep water to the surface ocean followed by catastrophic failure of pump materials under the dynamic stresses of the oceanic environment. Wave-driven upwelling of cold water was documented for a period of ;17 h, with a volumetric upwelling rate of ;45 m3 h21 and an estimated total input of 765 m3 of nutrient-enriched deep water. The authors discuss the deployment of a 300-m wave pump, the strategy to sample a biogeochemical response, the engineering challenges faced, and the implications of these results for future experiments aimed at stimulating the growth of phytoplankton."


Also, this work showed that a significant amount of DIC (desovled inorganic carbon is a precursor to CO2 production within the water surface chemistry) will also be upwelled.

 However, the capture and utilization of the CO2, in a form of aquaculture which can produce vast amounts of biomass for fuel and biochar, is rather simplistic at the technical level. Much of my work is centered on bring this type of synergy to the collective table.

In brief, I propose the use of dual walled HDPE culverts as marine pipelines and or bioreactors.


In your proposal you mentioned only low carbon ships would be allowed to use the passage(s). Using the CO2 and nutrients which are upwelled to produce biofuel for the ships would seem to make both financial and environmental sense. The fuel sales could go a long way in financially supporting the overall operation and the pH adjustment, which vast scale CO2 removal will create, is highly important in the Arctic. 

This use of the CO2 would open your project up to a number of funding and carbon trading options.

I believe the effort to pump polar heat into space is highly important and I appreciate the effort you have made and will continue to support it. One final thought, however, finding a way to creating large scale holes in the Polar Stratospheric Clouds may be needed as PSCs are the ultimate polar heat trap.

Best regards,

Michael   

 


James Lau

May 10, 2016
11:14

Member


29 |
Share via:

The idea of wave power pump is interesting. However, the basic conservation of energy must hold. Fluid viscous motion will dissipate some energy. Reading the comment, I cannot know for sure how much energy was used for the movement of 700 plus cubic meter of ocean water. There is apparently no information about the tube diameter and the ocean water flow rate. There has been other proposals to bring deeper ocean water to the surface, but the source of the energy to move the ocean water has been unclear. OTEC (ocean thermal energy conversion) in tropical water has been connected to electric power grid in Hawaii. OTEC effectively achieve some mixing of the surface and deep water. The primary goal for OTEC should be using the ocean thermal energy to provide electricity, but the required heat input and output achieve the water mixing. OTEC electricity generating capacity is more than enough for global energy supply. Proper OTEC cold water pipe design can use less than 2 % of the generated electricity to pump ocean water and Rankine cycle circulating working fluid.