Iron fertilization

will the jew perceive any profits from this?

if no, it's not happening

>>8317160
Iron is a pretty valuable material. I'm sure people with iron sulfate would consider this a waste of money/resources.

>>8317160
Experiments are well documented. Read.

Wouldn't plankton blooms cause eutrophication and hypoxia?
Lakes with too much phytoplankton kill most other life in it except phytoplankton itself.

>>8317160
>Alright, if iron fertilization has a solid theoretical fundation suporting it, whats really stoping us from trying to do it?

It isn't well supported.

If you want to get serious, look up the much better, but much more energy expensive plan: Use nuclear energy to mine up limestone, heat to release CO2 and get quicklime, capture the CO2 and pump it into basalt deposits where it forms chemically stable bonds, grind up the quicklime and dump it in the ocean, where it absorbs CO2 and forms limestone, thereby reducing CO2 in the ocean and atmosphere.

>>8317168
On the contrary. This would only make iron more profitable and encourage the iron industry.

>>8317919
Who the fuck is funding this expedition anyways?

It's already been shown to work, but the question: "Is CO2 bad?" has still yet to be answered.

>>8318090
I believe that [math]\text{CO}_2[\math] is not bad, but since it is a byproduct of a wide variety of industrial processes, it is easier to make the public understand high emissions better by telling them that [math]\text{CO}_2[\math] is the only problem despite there being more harmful gases that are being emitted.

>>8317768
if you are going to use nuclear, why the fuck would you go through that hassle?

power to gas is a thing. we can literally make methane out of seawater with just electricity. we just need nuclear to get its shit together.

>>8318104
Mine is a plan to remove CO2 that is already there. Yours is not.

>>8318108
what? it literally removes CO2 from the ocean. the technology is simple as shit and is way more efficient than what you just outlined.

>>8318108
>>8318134
You are right. I cannot read.

There's a matter of cost. I'm not sure which is cheaper. You need to split water to get H2 to make hydrocarbons. I don't.

Also, my plan makes chemically stable compounds, whereas you have a bunch of methane or other hydrocarbons with not an obvious place to put them.

>>8318137
you can skip the hydrogen splitting part. the CO2 comes from just ionizing the water. 6MJ/kg CO2 is the best the Navy ever did. they were looking into the technology to make jet fuel at sea using the excess power of the nuclear reactor.

>>8318101
You're just using the argument that the ends justify the means

>>8318141
Where are you getting the H2 to make the methane if you're not splitting water by electrolysis. And if you have a bunch of CO2, the same problem remains: Where do you put it. By pumping CO2 directly basalt, it can form chemically stable bonds.

Then, I don't know which is cheaper and feasible to get CO2 out of seawater - the quicklime method or the US Navy method to get CO2 out of seawater. I'm not wed to either approach, and I don't know enough to comment now.

>>8318148
the important part is getting it sequestered. compress it and store it in tanks for now. synthetic hydrocarbon technology is still in its infancy. if we can find an efficient way of getting it back to a form resembling petroleum we can just put it back where we found it.

we shouldn't be seeking to landfill carbon, but to create a closed and manageable loop.

>>8318157
Again, pumping it into basalt looks like a great option too.

>>8318159
but that still keeps people using natural hydrocarbons and all the extraction procedures that implies.

i think it much better to create a cycle than to pump and dump.

also, isn't a global carbon capture system essentially a weather machine?

>>8318166
Protip: Climate change and ocean acidification are real problems.

>>8318170
i know, but you aren't realistically getting society off the hydrocarbon tit anytime soon. especially developing nations that don't have the capability of running nuclear.

>>8318170
Climate change is far more complicated than simply greenhouse effects from CO2. Global greening from increased CO2 is pretty positive.

Ocean acidification is a real problem though.

>>8318176
I'm not suggesting "stop using hydrocarbon fuels". I'm just suggesting we also put some CO2 into basalt.

>>8317266
hey look a guy who knows stuff, everybody point at him and laugh

>>8317160
Iron fertilization is better for increasing fisheries output than actually sequestering carbon.

>>8317221
Yup, the one time it was done before greenies got wind of it so they could shut it down, it massively increased the salmon catch.

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2012/10/rogue-geoengineering-to-create-algae.html
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2014/06/bureaucracy-and-hurdles-for-attempting.html
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2014/06/critics-of-iron-fertilization-said.html
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2014/06/russ-george-blogged-about-fraser-river.html