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.

Non-Tech : Alternative energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gary Mohilner who wrote (4888)	6/9/2008 10:22:49 AM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 16955

No need for using aircraft. There are plenty of ships that traverse many of these sterile areas (or could be financially persuaded to make the detour).. Put the Iron/Silica "cocktail" on those ships and distribute it in that manner. Hawk

To: Gary Mohilner who wrote (4888)	6/9/2008 1:23:23 PM
From: Archie Meeties	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 16955

That's way more expensive than just designing and iron ligand that; a) keeps it near the surface of the water, b) breaks down slowly so that a constant rate of fe is available.

To: Gary Mohilner who wrote (4888)	6/11/2008 12:46:59 PM
From: A.J. Mullen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 16955

Gary, You've clearly thought about this, but I'm surprised that you're so confident that lifting all that water wouldn't take much energy. The deep water is there because it is more dense than that at the surface. You're not discussing small amounts of water. Surface waters in temperate regions warm in summer, water expands as it warms and the structure of the water becomes more stable. It takes more energy to exchange the low-density surface water for the high-density deeper water. The phytoplankton remove what nutrients are available Consider temperate waters in the winter. Strong gales have mixed the waters. There's little sun, so not much heating, and not much photosynthesis. With spring comes the sun. Photosynthesis takes off, plants grow and zooplankton respond to increased availability of food and warmer temperatures. The water close to the surface gets warmer. That means it gets less dense and more buoyant. It resists being mixed with the colder water that is more dense. The surface water becomes depleted of nutrients but low concentrations are sustained by recycling provided by the bodily functions of the animals grazing on the phytoplankton and higher trophic level. Occasional spring gales sometimes disturb the upper waters enough to bring in some of the deeper water with new nutrients. This brings a temporary reprieve and can stimulate another burst of activity that spreads up from the phytoplankton. In the fall the sun is reduced, the surface water cools and is more susceptible to the strong gales of fall. There is often another burst of activity as the thermal structure starts to break down while there's enough sun to use the nutrients that are made available. Eventually though, the gales destroy the thermal stability and the upper waters become indistinguishable from those much deeper. Now you might be considering the tropics, but the water has to be below the top mixed layer, which varies form about 30 to 200m deep. Gales or even hurricanes don't have enough energy to bring this water up. You want to pump the water up. If you replace the water in the top, say just the top 30m, then you have to keep replacing it because in a week or two the nutrients will be consumed. Finally, stimulating photosynthesis doesn't necessarily remove Co2. Whatever fraction of the phytoplankton get eaten and metabolized is returned as C02. Any fish caught and consumed will represent carbon returned to the atmosphere. Not that stimulating fish production is a bad thing - it's just that it doesn't reduce Co2. Only faecal material and decaying detritus that falls into deep anoxic zones can truly be considered removed. Ashley