Global Scale: Chemosynthetic Management of the Water/Energy/Nutrient Nexus-WENN by CO2 Neg./RCP 2.6

Hi Welcome to the MIT Climate Colab contest. It is a great pleasure to read your proposal. We are looking forward for further details in your proposal. Best Sardar Mohazzam

Hello Michael and thank you. First I have considered the upwelling head in a series of rendering I did for a 100MW system that is available at http://www3.telus.net/gwmitigationmethod/100MWPlant.htm Images 57 through 61 show how the pressure of the gas is used to augment the electric motors that run the pumps that return condensed working fluid to the surface and the impeller motors that draw warm and cold water through the evaporator and condenser respectively and move the system to fresh water. The CO2 problem is one of the main reasons I and some colleagues are opposed to the conventional design for OTEC and instead favor the heat pipe design which uses the phase changes of the working fluid to move heat rather than large masses of water. The only upwelling that would occur in that case would be due to the convection of the warmed deep water and this is estimated at about 4 meters/year in the paper presented by Norman Rogers to the 2012 AGU. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012AGUFM.A23A0182R The downward movement of the vapor in a heat pipe would be so rapid there is no need for insulation. It would be counterproductive in any case considering the objective is to condense the vapor so it can be returned to repeat the power cycle. Paul Curto, former chief technologist with NASA says in his OP ed American Energy Policy V -- Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion, "If the condensing end of the heat pipe is exposed to a thousand feet or more of near freezing temperatures below the thermocline, no cold water pumping is required. The parasitic losses are cut in half. The costs for the cold water pipe are eliminated, along with the cold water return pipe and condenser pumps, the cleaning system for the condenser, and the overall plant efficiency approaches 85% of Carnot vs. about 70% with a cold water pipe. The parasitic losses could be reduced as much as 50% and the complexity, mass (and cost) of the system reduced by at least 30%. The vast reduction in operating costs and environmental impacts would be worth investigation alone." Further he points out, "no water from the bottom is released into the upper strata of the ocean, trapping all the CO2 deep beneath the thermocline." Chlorine is a problem with sea water electrolysis but there has been work done on anodes that are selective for oxygen and in the renderings I show desalinators operating at 1000 meters which use the ambient pressure of 100 bar for reverse osmosis to produce pure water which then is electrolyzed. This approaches has maintenance issues but in the comments to this article http://theenergycollective.com/jim-baird/423076/carbon-sequestering-energy-production some other workarounds for chlorine problem are suggested as well as other approaches to producing "supergreen" hydrogen. I have a problem with upwelling to produce biomass because of the CO2 issue but perhaps the bigger problem is the thermal stratification as is discussed here http://theenergycollective.com/jim-baird/184496/ocean-thermal-energy-conversion . Phytoplankton appear to be dieing off at an alarming rate due to thermal stratification that would be moderated by moving surface heat into the deep with heat pipes. These also significantly reduce the capital cost of OTEC because they are an order of magnitude smaller than cold water pipes leading to the 30% cost reduction Paul Curto points to. Shylesh Muralidharan did an MIT masters thesis on the Assessment of ocean thermal energy conversion - http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/76927 that shows OTEC has the highest capacity and a very competitive levelized capital costs compared to other technologies.He also pointed to a Shrinivasan paper that shows the deep water condenser OTEC design brings down the installed capital cost of a 100 MW plant ship from 4000$/kw to 2650$/kw, which is about by Paul Curto's 30%. Muralidharan also explains how the doubling of plant size leads to a cost/kW reduction of approximately 22%. Using CO2 as the working fluid allows for plants of gigawatt capacity or more, so extrapolating from his a 1 GW plant of the heat pipe design would cost $86*2650/4000*78/100*(1-(.22*(200/800))) or 42 $/MWh for the lowest levelized capital cost of all energy sources but for combined cycle natural gas. Considering this energy source reduces the threat of tropical storms, lowers sea level rise, cools surface ocean and atmosphere temperatures and produces water concurrently I can't see how we can not afford to go this route? Again thank you very much for your interest and input. Jim

Jim, Can you expand upon your comment of "I have a problem with upwelling to produce biomass because of the CO2 issue but perhaps the bigger problem is the thermal stratification as is discussed here http://theenergycollective.com/jim-baird/184496/ocean-thermal-energy-conversion . Phytoplankton appear to be dieing off at an alarming rate due to thermal stratification that would be moderated by moving surface heat into the deep with heat pipes.". What exactly do your mean by "the CO2 issue"??? The up-welled CO2 is highly manageable and the captured CO2 utility factor (i.e. micro-algae biomass cultivation) is...the...most productive use of CO2 currently known. Also, concerning thermal stratification, properly designed marine biomass (micro-algae) chemosynthetic tank farms would cool the local surface water and thus would act as an active mitigation of thermal stratification and this cooling effect can cover 100s/1000s/10,000s of km2s of thermally critical waters. In marine critical thermal areas, this wide area surface cooling would have other significant/positive effects at multiple levels, such as: A)-reducing the growth of the "oligotrophic" regions http://www.pifsc.noaa.gov/media/news/polovinaetal_Feb08.php B)-no surface heat transferred into the sub-nutricline/thermocline regions as the tank farms act as high throughput water coolers and thus the advective flow imparts no thermal stress at any level. The massive amounts of heat energy collected by the cultivation tanks can be easily and benignly transmitted off planet via mid-infrared radiation. Please read: Harvesting renewable energy from Earth’s mid-infrared emissions (EEH) http://sjbyrnes.com/pub_PNAS_2014.pdf Transferring massive amounts of heat into the mesopelagic region seems problematic as the heated water will simply convect to the surface. Also, the mesopelagic fish population is just now becoming known and thus heating the mesopelagic region will probably raise many questions/reasons for vast scale deployment delays. Please read: "There really ARE more fish in the sea: Scientists find deep sea species untouched by fishing makes up 95% of all fish in the world" http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2572398/The-hidden-fish-make-95-marine-life.html#ixzz3bw3fcQ7Z C)-surface cooling/cultivation tank farms can be used in a highly focused/targeted method within critical thermal regions while producing vast volumes of marine biomass/C neg. fuel/food/feed/polymers/biochar and freshwater etc. New Marine Thermal Mapping https://ci5.googleusercontent.com/proxy/HClQTDduDhepR1PIsZt3uxnIBfBhv50SZ8vDPllT2ydmqo75_R3hronnobCFNa6zSUU-6rxiSmgg__kgMZLdN6u5oXqWbRKcYKu2aD6PmUD6UqU=s0-d-e1-ft#https://robertscribbler.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/image.jpg Jim, I've taken the time to read your Energy Collective comment page and the comments posted by you, Greg, Rodger etc. and I would like to draw the collective attention of your group to the overwhelming socioeconomic, environmental and policy benefits of: 1)marine biomass production in general due to need for critical commoditis such as food/feed/fertilizer/biofuel/biochar etc, 2)chemosynthetic cultivation in specific as this method offers the most controlled form of cultivation of biomass now known and the H2 used in the chemosynthetic method (oxyhydrogen reaction in micro-algae) sets up an (eventual) H2 based global energy supply and distribution system. 3)pumping the excess heat into space (via EEH) directly addresses the need for vast scale surface cooling in a way which does not 'shift' the energy to another critical biogeochemical system/region (i.e. mesopelagic). Your thoughts??? Michael

The following is the follow on from the above: Hello Michael and thank you. First I have considered the upwelling head in a series of rendering I did for a 100MW system that is available at http://www3.telus.net/gwmitigationmethod/100MWPlant.htm Images 57 through 61 show how the pressure of the gas is used to augment the electric motors that run the pumps that return condensed working fluid to the surface and the impeller motors that draw warm and cold water through the evaporator and condenser respectively and move the system to fresh water. The CO2 problem is one of the main reasons I and some colleagues are opposed to the conventional design for OTEC and instead favor the heat pipe design which uses the phase changes of the working fluid to move heat rather than large masses of water. The only upwelling that would occur in that case would be due to the convection of the warmed deep water and this is estimated at about 4 meters/year in the paper presented by Norman Rogers to the 2012 AGU. http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012AGUFM.A23A0182R The downward movement of the vapor in a heat pipe would be so rapid there is no need for insulation. It would be counterproductive in any case considering the objective is to condense the vapor so it can be returned to repeat the power cycle. Paul Curto, former chief technologist with NASA says in his OP ed American Energy Policy V -- Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion, "If the condensing end of the heat pipe is exposed to a thousand feet or more of near freezing temperatures below the thermocline, no cold water pumping is required. The parasitic losses are cut in half. The costs for the cold water pipe are eliminated, along with the cold water return pipe and condenser pumps, the cleaning system for the condenser, and the overall plant efficiency approaches 85% of Carnot vs. about 70% with a cold water pipe. The parasitic losses could be reduced as much as 50% and the complexity, mass (and cost) of the system reduced by at least 30%. The vast reduction in operating costs and environmental impacts would be worth investigation alone." Further he points out, "no water from the bottom is released into the upper strata of the ocean, trapping all the CO2 deep beneath the thermocline." Chlorine is a problem with sea water electrolysis but there has been work done on anodes that are selective for oxygen and in the renderings I show desalinators operating at 1000 meters which use the ambient pressure of 100 bar for reverse osmosis to produce pure water which then is electrolyzed. This approaches has maintenance issues but in the comments to this article http://theenergycollective.com/jim-baird/423076/carbon-sequestering-energy-production some other workarounds for chlorine problem are suggested as well as other approaches to producing "supergreen" hydrogen. I have a problem with upwelling to produce biomass because of the CO2 issue but perhaps the bigger problem is the thermal stratification as is discussed here http://theenergycollective.com/jim-baird/184496/ocean-thermal-energy-conversion . Phytoplankton appear to be dieing off at an alarming rate due to thermal stratification that would be moderated by moving surface heat into the deep with heat pipes. These also significantly reduce the capital cost of OTEC because they are an order of magnitude smaller than cold water pipes leading to the 30% cost reduction Paul Curto points to. Shylesh Muralidharan did an MIT masters thesis on the Assessment of ocean thermal energy conversion - http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/76927 that shows OTEC has the highest capacity and a very competitive levelized capital costs compared to other technologies.He also pointed to a Shrinivasan paper that shows the deep water condenser OTEC design brings down the installed capital cost of a 100 MW plant ship from 4000$/kw to 2650$/kw, which is about by Paul Curto's 30%. Muralidharan also explains how the doubling of plant size leads to a cost/kW reduction of approximately 22%. Using CO2 as the working fluid allows for plants of gigawatt capacity or more, so extrapolating from his a 1 GW plant of the heat pipe design would cost $86*2650/4000*78/100*(1-(.22*(200/800))) or 42 $/MWh for the lowest levelized capital cost of all energy sources but for combined cycle natural gas. Considering this energy source reduces the threat of tropical storms, lowers sea level rise, cools surface ocean and atmosphere temperatures and produces water concurrently I can't see how we can not afford to go this route? Again thank you very much for your interest and input. Jim

A number of my proposals ended up having critical parts come up missing or shorted. I'm clueless as to how that happened and this is not the first time this has happened. In an attempt to repair that issue, I' posting here in the comment section a fully completed 'action' section yet it does not have links. A fully complete proposals can be found at; Adaptation: https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1301411/planId/1314308 or Atypical Ideas for Carbon Neutrality: https://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1301603/planId/1314313 I recommend going directly to the proposals for proper viewing of the details. What actions do you propose? "Today we need a global Apollo programme to tackle climate change; but this time the effort needs to be international. We need a major international scientific and technological effort, funded by both public and private money.". (Excerpt from: A GLOBAL APOLLO PROGRAMME TO COMBAT CLIMATE CHANGE) The above advocates for massive international concentration of political and capital strength on deployment of solar energy means and methods to achieve the needed CO2 reductions. This position is understandable and supportable. However, carbon neutral energy means and methods, such as solar energy conversion, are no longer adequate to forestall drastic climate change. At this time, the full spectrum of the water, carbon negative energy and nutrient nexus management needs must be factored into any form of 'Global Apollo Programme to Combat Climate Change'. Primary action/principle being proposed: Vast scale use of chemosynthetic and or heterotrophic cultivation of biomass as a means for urban, rural, marine and overall global scale water, energy and nutrient nexus (WENN) management. Funding for this WENN management regimen can be achieved through the use of environmentally focused intergovernmental agreements, market funding instruments and/or non-profit funding programs such as: 1) The most forward leaning intergovernmental climate change mitigation/adaptation agreement is summarized by the US Department of State. In part: Commitment by developed countries to the goal of mobilizing jointly USD $100 billion per year by 2020 from public and private sources, to address the needs of developing countries in the context of meaningful mitigation actions and transparency on implementation A call to establish the Green Climate Fund, a new multilateral trust fund designed to foster low emission and climate resilient development and catalyze private sector investment. 2) The Green Climate Fund (a): "..the Fund will promote the paradigm shift towards low-emission and climate-resilient development pathways by providing support to developing countries to limit or reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and to adapt to the impacts of climate change, taking into account the needs of those developing countries particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change.". In the non-intergovernmental space, a growing number of important market funding paths are being developed. Such as: 3) Green Bond Principles 2014: Voluntary Process Guidelines for Issuing Green Bonds: 4) World Bank Green Bond "Funding for new technologies that permit significant reductions in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions" 5) Homeland Security Grants "Strengthen national preparedness and resilience, building a ready and resilient Nation, with the ability to plan, prepare for, and respond to disasters. Proposals for climate resilience coupled with a restructured DHS grant program will help create robust national preparedness capabilities.". 6) "Transforming the Traditional Municipal Bond Market to Finance Environment-Friendly Green Projects" "In 2013 Massachusetts became the first state in the U.S. municipal bond market to issue these so-called green bonds. The offering was so successful that Massachusetts tripled the volume of green bonds offered in 2014, selling $350 million in bonds to individual and institutional investors this month. According to Massachusetts Treasury officials, the demand for green bonds far outpaced the supply. The Treasury reportedly received received $1 billion in buy orders for the $350 million bonds offered. billion in buy orders for the $350 million bonds offered.". 7) ‘Conservation Bonds’ Take Green Financing to the Next Level "Green bonds, as described by the World Bank, “are fixed income, liquid financial instruments that are used to raise funds dedicated to climate-mitigation, adaptation, and other environment-friendly projects.” When issued by multilateral institutions such as the World Bank, or agencies of national governments such as the German Development Bank, such bonds may carry low, or even concessionary interest rates. Furthermore, a number of private financial institutions, attracted by the reliable returns on projects financed by green bonds, have entered the marketplace. The Green Bond market is rapidly growing. First issued by the World Bank in 2007, the green bond market grew to $11 billion in 2013. As reported by the World Bank, some $32 billion of green bonds have been issued by multilaterals, governments and corporate issuers from January through October 2014, and could surpass $40 billion for the year.". 8) Climate Bond Initiative: "Green bonds were created to fund projects that have positive environmental and/or climate benefits. The majority of the green bonds issued are green “use of proceeds” or asset-linked bonds. Proceeds from these bonds are earmarked(link is external) for green projects but are backed by the issuer’s entire balance sheet. There have also been green "use of proceeds" revenue bonds(link is external), green project bonds and green securitized (link is external) bonds.". 9) "The wheels of climate finance are turning: the Green Climate Fund (GCF) will soon start distributing funds through 7 institutions.". "The accredited institutions include the following: Centre de suivi écologique (CSE) from Senegal, which focuses on combating desertification and protecting coastal areas. In 2010, CSE was the first national institution to be accredited and to implement a project through the Adaptation Fund , the first international climate fund to take the pioneering step of accrediting developing country institutions. Fondo de Promoción de las Áreas Naturales Protegidas del Péru (PROFONANPE) that specializes in funding biodiversity conservation and managing protected areas. Like CSE, PROFONANPE is also accredited to the Adaptation Fund. the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP), an intergovernmental organization of Pacific Island countries and territories, based in Samoa, which focuses on protection and sustainable development of the Pacific region’s environment the Acumen Fund, Inc. (Acumen), a well-respected private venture capital fund that invests in developing country entrepreneurs and businesses working to alleviate poverty and advance sustainable development. The social impact investment fund works on improving the lives of low income communities in Africa and Asia, especially in healthcare, agriculture and clean energy. Three international organizations were also accredited: the Asian Development Bank (ADB), Kreditanstalt für Wiederaufbau (KfW), and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).". 10) "Major International Research Initiative Launched to Improve Food Security for Developing Countries - Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation." (a). "Listening to farmers and addressing their specific needs. We talk to farmers about the crops they want to grow and eat, as well as the unique challenges they face. We partner with organizations that understand and are equipped to address these challenges, and we invest in research to identify relevant and affordable solutions that farmers want and will use. Increasing farm productivity. We support a comprehensive approach to helping smallholder farmers prosper that includes access to heartier seeds, more effective tools and farm management practices, locally relevant knowledge, emerging digital technologies, and reliable markets. We also advocate for agricultural policies that support farmers in their efforts to better feed themselves and their communities. Fostering sustainable agricultural practices. In an era of increasingly scarce resources and growing impact of climate change, we encourage farmers to embrace and adopt sustainable practices that help them grow more with less land, water, fertilizer, and other costly inputs while preserving natural resources for future generations. Achieving greater impact with partners. We are committed to communicating our strategy more effectively and sharing what we’ve learned with grantees and other partners, including governments, nongovernmental organizations, traditional and emerging donors, and the private sector. Our resources, while significant, represent only a fraction of what is needed. Collaborating effectively with others maximizes our collective impact in helping farming families.". The above list of funding paths is not exhaustive and many existing and future environmental focused funding programs can be coupled together to provide a comprehensive list of funding options for all WENN management scenarios ranging from the smallest rural communities; the largest of metropolitan cities; remote rural areas, marine solutions and/or entire global regions. This proposal calls for the creation of a Benefit Corporation (B Corp), with an international scope and benefit mission which can lead the way in the establishing standards and practices associated with WENN local/regional STEM management, funding and policy development. The B Corp mission statement can use modified language found in many bio-energy development related agencies, such as the Department of Energy's Office of Bioenergy Technology, while employing an international perspective. The mission of the Office of Bioenergy Technology is stated as follows: "Develop and transform our renewable biomass resources into commercially viable, high-performance biofuels, bioproducts, and biopower through targeted research, development, and demonstration supported through public and private partnerships." The goal of the Office is to develop commercially viable bioenergy and bioproduct technologies to: · Enable sustainable, nationwide production of biofuels that are compatible with today’s transportation infrastructure, can reduce greenhouse gas emissions relative to petroleum-derived fuels, and can displace a share of petroleum-derived fuels to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil. · Encourage the creation of a new domestic bioenergy and bioproduct industry. The above language can be crafted to reflect the global need for bio-energy independence, climate change mitigation/adaptation, water recovery/creation and bulk nutrient management. Additionally, the final draft of the mission statement should be the subject of a...brief...international debate so as to flush out any strong objections from the STEM, policy or civil society sectors. Once the B Corp is established and the WENN specific funding matrix is customized per specific locations (i.e. cities, rural, marine, regional etc.), multiple on-the-ground projects can be initiated simultaneously around the planet.