Ocean Resources Conservation and Adaptation (ORCA) Cities by ORCA Cities

Exchange with Impact Assessment Fellow Yi Huang

Received 10/20/15 The Climate CoLab user ecnmchedsgn has sent you the following message:

 

Subject: Impact Assessment of Your Proposal - Global Contest

 

Dear Michael,

 

As part of the judging process, impact fellows have conducted assessments of the impact of your proposal. Here are a few notes of the adjustments (based on the impact model of previous WENN model - US regional plan), and please let us know if any changes are made or if any assumptions need to be modified.

 

Based on previous WENN proposal (US regional plan), several changes are made to include effects on cost reduction for renewable technologies, and has excluded effects of current proposal on population growth rate. These changes are not suggested by the fellow, not by the author.

 

The parameters are changed because the proposal mentions use of biochar and other hydrocarbon replacements for oil as a source of energy, that can be produced from chemosynthesis projects. Replacement for oil from bio sources can be considered as renewable source of energy. Thus significant cost reduction is considered for renewable energy sources. Cost reduction for renewables is increased from 0 to 0.9 starting at year 2020.

 

Previously, the author considers acceleration of GDP growth due to construction of these energy islands (to a rate of 4%). However, we believe it’s an overestimate and have used default GDP per capita growth rate of 2.2% instead.

 

Looking forward to hearing from you!

 

Best,

Yi

 

Hello Yi, I’m glad to hear from you again.

 

1) The Upgrade to iWENN: The older WENN Protocol proposal was not advanced and so there was no opportunity to incorporate the changes we worked on for that proposal. The original WENN proposal has been upgraded to the Integrated Water, Energy, Nutrient Nexus (iWENN) Management Protocol.

 

In the iWENN upgrade, the technology suite is not limited to the three technologies of chemosynthesis, perpetual salt fountains and HDPE bioreactors (carbon negative marine and land biomass production infrastructure). In the newer iWENN concept, a compilation of all carbon negative technologies, used at the large scale infrastructure level, is being called for.

 

2) In working with the EnRoads model generator, my greatest concern is that it does not seem to be reflecting the results of an aggressive increase in the production and use bio-energy. The below model section (within the Green Funding[...] proposal) shows an almost null response to large scale biofuel production. When this result showed up, I basically gave up working with the model.

 

However, when I wrote up the ORCA Cities proposal, I spent more time working with the model and found better results. Please see the below comparison. I stand by the ORCA model far more than the ‘Green Funding’ model.

 

 

As to the global GDP per capita weight of 4.0, this is based upon aggressive funding of the build-out and future carbon negative commodity production demands. Without aggressive funding, the GDP figure gain would be minimal to nonexistent.

 

Predicting GDP per capita rates, at a global scale, has a wide potential variability due to countless contingencies.  In one scenario, I could easily (and from a justifiable STEM view) call for a high level use of automation in both construction and production which minimizes job creation. Yet the reduction in the cost for biofuel (energy in general), food, feed, fertilizer, plastic etc. would provide a meaningful jump in the GDP factor.

 

Or, the proposal could just as easily call for the creation of a massive number of jobs through using non-automated construction and production practises.

 

I see both scenarios being useful with the latter scenario being used first (as there is currently a massive global need for jobs) with the prior being transitioned to in the mid to late century time frame.

The use of both the GDP 4.0 and a GDP 2.2 weights are included in the ‘Green Funding’ proposal and the ‘ORCA Cities’ proposal respectively. I do stand by the ORCA model and would happily through the ‘Green Funding’ model under the next bus that passes by.

 

Thank you again for your time Yi.

 

Michael

Michael,

Glad to see recognition of the ocean as solution.  The Ocean Foresters continue to see Ocean Forests as the only viable multi-solution at the scale needed to bring atmospheric CO2 concentrations back below 350 ppm before 2150.  We certainly could use floating mega-structures.  At the very least, we need to be installing invisible breakwaters and putting coastal facilities either on stilts or capable of floating during storm surge.  (An invisible breakwater calms waves so that the floating/stilt structures are not battered by waves.  They would be battered by wind.)

Eventually, all our coasts would become floating structures.  As long as we are installing invisible breakwaters, we can engineer multiple functions into those breakwaters: capturing floods from rivers by containing the fresh water over the salt water; anchors for kelp and other seaweed; built-in seaweed harvesting mechanisms; flexibility for optimizing the time and shape of surfing waves; optimizing conditions for coral reef ecosystems to grow faster than sea level rise in places where coral reef is the invisible breakwater; etc.

Further,

The statement of "Ocean Forests as the only viable multi-solution at the scale needed to bring atmospheric CO2 concentrations back below 350 ppm before 2150." (my highlight) is simply not supportable at the STEM level.