Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy Jetson who wrote (11271)	11/8/2006 3:24:14 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218057

Elroy, you are funny. Sure, one can't be sure of exactly what effects there will be from doing something, but one can have a broadly correct idea. By putting the CO2 in the ocean, the precise outcome will depend on the precise position and time it's done. The idea doesn't become wrong because I don't know exactly which fish will be annoyed to have CO2 where they used to swim. Nor am I at war with my own facts. <The end result is when carbon dioxide output outstrips the ability of the the phytoplankton to process the carbon dioxide, as is indicated by a rising percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the sequestering ability of phytoplankton actually declines - making the imbalance worse.> If that had happened, yes. But it hasn't. The Indian Ocean is fairly barren due to heat and lack of phytoplankton, but there is heaps elsewhere, in cooler climates. We get big algal blooms around here. I explained to you what happens if you let CO2 fall through a pipe into the ocean [you don't pump it, you generate electricity with the flow, just as you don't pump water down penstocks in a hydroelectric dam - gravity was invented centuries ago by Issac Newton, a Jewish bloke with an apple who shouted "Eureka", when he saw the Greenhouse Effect float the apple in his bathtub]. I'll repeat it since you seem confused. Liquid CO2 has a higher density than sea water. So, it will flow down the pipe, using Jewish scientific gravitational principles, and if the pipe ends at the bottom, it will form a puddle there, unless the bottom is sloping, in which case it will run down the slope, dissolving in the water, until it gets to a depression, where it will form a puddle. The puddle will gradually dissolve. No, I haven't calculated just how quickly it will dissolve because it will depend on the shape of the depression and the flow of water over the depression. If, for example, the depression is a big hole, such as an old oil field, and the CO2 goes down the pipe into the empty reservoir, it will sit in there for so long that our discussion will end due to old age. If it's a flat depression with fast flow of water over it, the CO2 will dissolve quickly, depending on water temperature, surface area, flow rate etc. When it has dissolved, it will flow along with the water, to wherever the water is going. Simple isn't it. There is a LOT of water in the ocean, so it would take a long time to fill it up. If the CO2 was piped down 5 kilometres, it would be, usually, a long time before it got back to the surface. Anyway, as I said, I think that idea is unnecessary and it's better just to exhaust CO2 to the atmosphere, where plants can get immediate access to it and it can dissolve straight into the ocean surface to feed phytoplankton there. If the plants also need nutrients, then feed them nutrients. No big deal. We already have fertilizer factories. They could produce all sorts of nutrients. If production goes up profitably because of fertilizer, then that's what farmers will do. Do you understand it better now? Mqurice