UK energy future

[DodgyAgent]

Any technology must compete with other methods of reducing CO2 (or preventing it being emitted), the driving market mechanism being carbon credits. The trouble with Carbon Dioxide Removal is that CO2 is such a small % of the atmosphere - you have to process a lot of air to get a tiny amount of carbon. Looks like the market has decided that the prospects for ocean fertilisation are less good that plain old emissions reduction. I would perhaps have expected a champion of the free market to welcome this.

That's not to say CDR cannot play a part or that the public and private sector research should stop, far from it, its just that we have little time to lose, and resources need to be focussed where we get most bang for our buck. CDR is discussed in the book from the US National Academy

Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration | The National Academies Press

Ocean fertilisation is on p56. Estimated cost is $457 for each tonne of CO2 removed.

Interesting how the whole tone of your response is to ignore it/rubbish it . I found out about this at a seminar for recruitment agencies helping recruiters to understand how recruitment functions protect themselves from outsiders coming in to supply people they are not able to supply. The point that was being made is that although you may have a solution that delivers something that cannot be supplied in any other way do not expect them to jump at your service unless the incentives are there to do so.

"A free market solution" You and your ilk have made sure that no such thing will be allowed

The most prominent example of Ocean fertilisation came from a guy called Russ george who basically dumped iron sulphate into the ocean off the coast of canada. he was paid by a local fishing community to do this. It did have the effect of increasing the number of fish. However there were howls of rage from environmentalists, Ocean groups, and government that someone should tamper with the eco systems of the Oceans "for profit". Despite the fact that nature does this itself - only on a much larger scale Iron from the Sahara dust helps fertilize Atlantic Ocean | Earth | EarthSky George has been facing all sorts of aggression from the ECO zealots in government and Ocean institutions.

Instead of looking carefully at his experiment and working out the pros and how to overcome the cons Ocean fertilisation has been consigned to the bin - not because it fails to offer an antidote to growing CO2 levels or destruction of the Oceans but because it threatens the power and importance of those responsible for "looking after" our eco systems.

All your comments are from someone who is clearly selling an alternative/competitive solution not from someone who is concerned about climate change. If it were you would be asking the questions about the "problems" (all of which have answers) instead of doing your best to write them off.

Ocean Fertilization: A Dangerous Experiment Gone Right | PlanetSave

[pjclarke]

The main problem is actually that it's a load of tulip.

And that the IPCC is not in the business of impartial climate research but in trying to terrify the world with the spectre of man-made climate change with a view to furthering the efforts of a would-be global government.

We were told in 2007 that we had "little time to lose" and within 7 years the polar ice could be almost gone. What a load of crap that was. Then there's Gore telling us all we need to make massive changes and pay taxes to save the planet - this from a man who dropped depleted uranium on Yugoslavia.

Just ******* can it will you, please?

In 2007, the arctic ice extent fell off a cliff, had that continued, the projection would have been correct, fortunately the rate of decline reverted to the long term trend. I believe you're quoting Gore who was quoting Maslowski? He actually said some of the models suggest a 75% probability. Most experts were and are giving a date nearer 2030. I'm not sure that that ice decline of 13% / decade and the loss of summer ice by 2030 is nothing to worry about.

https://youtu.be/nuKVk1gMJDg

[LucidDementia]

Here's the thing, nice and simple.
Your religious sect has had more than 20 years to show that its sensationalist claims that mankind is changing the climate of the planet.
In those 20 years you have been unable to do it.
End of.

Einstein got his Special Theory sorted in 7 years and in his own words once he had overcome the issue of time itself; "After I had this inspiration, it took only five weeks to complete what is now known as the special theory of relativity."
That was one guy. One.

As I said pages ago - it's pointless trying to debate with you people.

[EternalOptimist]

had that continued, the projection would have been correct,
https://youtu.be/nuKVk1gMJDg

ooh me ribs


if I had kept growing, I'd be twenty feet tall now

[pjclarke]

The most prominent example of Ocean fertilisation came from a guy called Russ george who basically dumped iron sulphate into the ocean off the coast of canada. he was paid by a local fishing community to do this. It did have the effect of increasing the number of fish. However there were howls of rage from environmentalists, Ocean groups, and government that someone should tamper with the eco systems of the Oceans "for profit".

Actually he was villified for breaking at least two international agreements, the UN's convention on biological diversity and London convention on the dumping of wastes at sea. Maybe that was why the fishery sacked him. Problem 1: as it stands Ocean Fertilisation is illegal. It was a success, in that it boosted salmon numbers and reinvigorated a fishing industry. Problem 2 : the theory is a plankton bloom is triggered and sinks to the bottom, what tends to happen is that anything above plankton in the food chain senses a free lunch and rushes in, so most of the carbon never makes it to the ocean floor. Problem 3: In terms of removing CO2 it is between 5 and 15 times cheaper, and with far fewer side-effects to plant trees (which I'm all in favour of, but as with the ocean, even if we use all the available land, we still need to reduce emissions). George charged the indeginous people $2.5 million for his 'experiment'.

[EternalOptimist]

Actually he was villified for breaking at least two international agreements, the UN's convention on biological diversity and London convention on the dumping of wastes at sea. Maybe that was why the fishery sacked him. Problem 1: as it stands Ocean Fertilisation is illegal. It was a success, in that it boosted salmon numbers and reinvigorated a fishing industry. Problem 2 : the theory is a plankton bloom is triggered and sinks to the bottom, what tends to happen is that anything above plankton in the food chain senses a free lunch and rushes in, so most of the carbon never makes it to the ocean floor. Problem 3: In terms of removing CO2 it is between 5 and 15 times cheaper, and with far fewer side-effects to plant trees (which I'm all in favour of, but as with the ocean, even if we use all the available land, we still need to reduce emissions).

why do you keep saying carbon ?
your loose use of language makes you look sloppy and inaccurate

maybe you are

[DodgyAgent]

Actually he was villified for breaking at least two international agreements, the UN's convention on biological diversity and London convention on the dumping of wastes at sea. Maybe that was why the fishery sacked him. Problem 1: as it stands Ocean Fertilisation is illegal. It was a success, in that it boosted salmon numbers and reinvigorated a fishing industry. Problem 2 : the theory is a plankton bloom is triggered and sinks to the bottom, what tends to happen is that anything above plankton in the food chain senses a free lunch and rushes in, so most of the carbon never makes it to the ocean floor. Problem 3: In terms of removing CO2 it is between 5 and 15 times cheaper, and with far fewer side-effects to plant trees (which I'm all in favour of, but as with the ocean, even if we use all the available land, we still need to reduce emissions).

So your point about it being an opportunity for a private investor is duplicitous. Your lot have created a set of rules that put such experiments under their control.

As for the rest of your assertions they are based on trite garbage. For example if the plankton feed into fish then the fish grow bones out of carbon and Oxygen is released into the Ocean then CO2 is being removed from the atmosphere. Furthermore to grow fish then Diatoms are first produced and many of these sink to the bottom of the Ocean or they float about in the sea. As for your economics they are based on large particles of iron sulphate - in other words popular existing technology. You cannot (or will not) see that technology can be developed to for example make the micronutrient (of which iron is just one that is needed) smaller, to add the other micronutrients (including silica) and therefore make the whole process more cost effective and efficient (which is actually what your "ilk" is afraid of)

[pjclarke]

why do you keep saying carbon ?
your loose use of language makes you look sloppy and inaccurate

maybe you are

This again?

When discussing sequestration it is perfectly normal, sensible, accepted, bog-standard practice to talk about the amount of carbon removed; after all the carbon sequestered by plankton is in the form of carbonate ions from dissolved CO2.

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

your loose use of language makes you look sloppy and inaccurate

No comment. Back to Bishop Hill with you.

[EternalOptimist]

This again?

When discussing sequestration it is perfectly normal, sensible, accepted, bog-standard practice to talk about the amount of carbon removed; after all the carbon sequestered by plankton is in the form of carbonate ions from dissolved CO2.

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



No comment. Back to Bishop Hill with you.

A quick chemistry lesson PJ

Carbon dioxide is one molecule of carbon and two molecules of oxygen

i.e. there are twice as many oxygen molecules in that gas.

why don't you call it Oxygen pollution ?

[LucidDementia]

why don't you call it Oxygen pollution ?

Because even the dumb ones would know they were full of it then.