Options

Carbon capture and storage

I started an article on Carbon capture and storage. We need a lot more here comparing the feasibility of different techniques and their ability to scale up well.

Comments

  • 1.

    I added a relevant quote from Without the hot air.

    The cost/energy of crushing seems very small, 0.04 kWh per kg of sucked CO2, but to reduce the land area used, I guess you need finer dust, and a faster throughput. What about using wind mills (not turbines) for this?

    As far as mining costs go, the easiest comparison seems to be to compare mining coal and olivine/serpentine.

    Comment Source:I added a relevant quote from [[Without the hot air]]. The cost/energy of crushing seems very small, 0.04 kWh per kg of sucked CO2, but to reduce the land area used, I guess you need finer dust, and a faster throughput. What about using wind mills (not turbines) for this? As far as mining costs go, the easiest comparison seems to be to compare mining coal and olivine/serpentine.
  • 2.

    Matching wind energy to industrial processes that can be conducted intermittently seems like a good idea; certainly if their capital cost is low in comparison with the cost of energy storage or the carbon cost of load balancing (presumably mostly gas turbines) that is otherwise needed.

    Maybe lifestyles will change and some people will go to work when it's windy and sit in the sun and make music or whatever when it's not. But what other processes are there that could be run intermittently? The only ones I can think of so far are the production of chlorine and sodium hydroxide and biochar pyrolysis using microwaves.

    Comment Source:Matching wind energy to industrial processes that can be conducted intermittently seems like a good idea; certainly if their capital cost is low in comparison with the cost of energy storage or the carbon cost of load balancing (presumably mostly gas turbines) that is otherwise needed. Maybe lifestyles will change and some people will go to work when it's windy and sit in the sun and make music or whatever when it's not. But what other processes are there that could be run intermittently? The only ones I can think of so far are the production of chlorine and sodium hydroxide and biochar pyrolysis using microwaves.
  • 3.

    The only ones I can think of so far are the production of chlorine and sodium hydroxide and biochar pyrolysis using microwaves.

    Using microwaves? I don't get it. What am I missing?

    Couldn't a bunch of industrial processes be run intermittently as long as that was cheaper and the deadline for finishing the process was sufficiently flexible? Or is everything so fine-tuned that people can't stomach the thought anymore of getting a product "sometime this month"?

    Comment Source:>The only ones I can think of so far are the production of chlorine and sodium hydroxide and biochar pyrolysis using microwaves. Using microwaves? I don't get it. What am I missing? Couldn't a bunch of industrial processes be run intermittently as long as that was cheaper and the deadline for finishing the process was sufficiently flexible? Or is everything so fine-tuned that people can't stomach the thought anymore of getting a product "sometime this month"?
  • 4.
    edited October 2010

    We need a better list (with information!) on methods of Carbon capture and storage.

    Right now we only list 3 methods:

    1) I started a section on "direct capture from air". David Keith has some ideas on this. Could someone write a little summary?

    2) I moved most details about enhanced weathering to the enhanced weathering page.

    3) I mentioned Uncle Al's possibly crazy but possibly interesting idea on pumping CO2 into methane clathrate formations underseas.

    There must be lots of more conventional ideas!

    Comment Source:**We need a better list (with information!) on methods of [[Carbon capture and storage]]**. Right now we only list 3 methods: 1) I started a section on "direct capture from air". [[David Keith]] has some ideas on this. Could someone write a little summary? 2) I moved most details about enhanced weathering to the [[enhanced weathering]] page. 3) I mentioned Uncle Al's possibly crazy but possibly interesting idea on pumping CO<sub>2</sub> into methane clathrate formations underseas. There must be lots of more conventional ideas!
  • 5.

    I have enhanced the discussion of coal bed methane extraction slightly, and copied it from Carbon negative energy to Carbon capture and storage.

    It could take some calculation to see if this is really a source of carbon negative energy! Can anyone do it?

    I can already see that in the long run we'll have lots of pages of techniques, then pages of general strategies linked to these technique pages. Sometimes there will be controversy about which techniques are examples of which strategies! But that's okay, we can just acknowledge and explain the controversy.

    Comment Source:I have enhanced the discussion of coal bed methane extraction slightly, and copied it from [[Carbon negative energy]] to [[Carbon capture and storage]]. It could take some calculation to see if this is really a source of carbon negative energy! **Can anyone do it?** I can already see that in the long run we'll have lots of pages of techniques, then pages of general strategies linked to these technique pages. Sometimes there will be controversy about which techniques are examples of which strategies! But that's okay, we can just acknowledge and explain the controversy.
  • 6.

    There's a company in New Zealand which has pioneered biochar production using microwaves. This seems to me to allow a neat way of using intermittent wind energy. The exothermic process, using an input of wind energy would produces syngas and biofuels which can be stored for use later. Normally the syngas, or at least some of it, is used to make the biochar and this looks a bit wasteful.

    Electrolysis seems to be one of the few high-power processes that can run in stop/start mode. But industrial processes are generally quite highly tuned and either break or become less efficient if they have to keep stopping.

    Comment Source:There's a company in New Zealand which has pioneered biochar production using microwaves. This seems to me to allow a neat way of using intermittent wind energy. The exothermic process, using an input of wind energy would produces syngas and biofuels which can be stored for use later. Normally the syngas, or at least some of it, is used to make the biochar and this looks a bit wasteful. Electrolysis seems to be one of the few high-power processes that can run in stop/start mode. But industrial processes are generally quite highly tuned and either break or become less efficient if they have to keep stopping.
  • 7.
    edited October 2010

    There's a company in New Zealand which has pioneered biochar production using microwaves.

    Cool! Please add a mention on the biochar page!

    Electrolysis seems to be one of the few high-power processes that can run in stop/start mode. But industrial processes are generally quite highly tuned and either break or become less efficient if they have to keep stopping.

    Interesting. How come you know this stuff? I must admit, I don't really know you very well yet...

    Comment Source:>There's a company in New Zealand which has pioneered biochar production using microwaves. Cool! Please add a mention on the [[biochar]] page! >Electrolysis seems to be one of the few high-power processes that can run in stop/start mode. But industrial processes are generally quite highly tuned and either break or become less efficient if they have to keep stopping. Interesting. How come you know this stuff? I must admit, I don't really know you very well yet...
  • 8.

    I've been thinking about it, off and on, for a decade or three.

    Comment Source:I've been thinking about it, off and on, for a decade or three.
  • 9.
    edited November 2010

    I added a bunch of information to Carbon capture and storage. I got this information from comments to the blog post Stabilization Wedges (Part 2).

    This means that Frederik can concentrate on critiques of Pacala and Socolow's climate wedges, linking to Carbon capture and storage for some more details on that subject. It doesn't really make sense for the Stabilization wedges article to include an enormous detailed account of methods for CCS.

    Comment Source:I added a bunch of information to [[Carbon capture and storage]]. I got this information from comments to the blog post [Stabilization Wedges (Part 2)](http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2010/11/23/stabilization-wedges-part-2/#comment-2769). This means that Frederik can concentrate on critiques of Pacala and Socolow's climate wedges, linking to [[Carbon capture and storage]] for some more details on that subject. It doesn't really make sense for the [[Stabilization wedges]] article to include an enormous detailed account of methods for CCS.
  • 10.

    About the presentation of Carbon capture and storage: this page has become quite long. I would personally suggest to split the content, and create, e.g., a separate page for Carbon capture and storage for coal plants.

    Comment Source:About the presentation of [[Carbon capture and storage]]: this page has become quite long. I would personally suggest to split the content, and create, e.g., a separate page for [[Carbon capture and storage for coal plants]].
  • 11.
    edited November 2010

    Go ahead! Good idea! Even better: how about starting a page called Coal, with a section called "Carbon capture and storage for coal plants". I think it's good to create pages for general topics before creating pages for special subtopics. Later, as we accumulate a lot information about coal, we can put this section on its own page.

    It's okay to start a general page that begins life with only information on one special topic. Doing this will help people think about what else we need to put into that page!

    Indeed, if you start a page called Coal, I already have some more information to put there.

    Comment Source:Go ahead! Good idea! Even better: how about starting a page called [[Coal]], with a section called "Carbon capture and storage for coal plants". I think it's good to create pages for general topics before creating pages for special subtopics. Later, as we accumulate a lot information about coal, we can put this section on its own page. It's okay to start a general page that begins life with only information on one special topic. Doing this will help people think about what else we need to put into that page! Indeed, if you start a page called [[Coal]], I already have some more information to put there.
  • 12.

    well, yes, but you already wrote a lot about Carbon capture and storage for coal-fired plants, so theoretically it's already a page by itself

    Comment Source:well, yes, but you already wrote a lot about Carbon capture and storage for coal-fired plants, so theoretically it's already a page by itself
  • 13.

    Whatever you like - I suggested my preferences, but it's more important that people do what they think is best!

    Comment Source:Whatever you like - I suggested my preferences, but it's more important that people do what they think is best!
  • 14.

    I've created coal - but I haven't put any information yet.

    Comment Source:I've created coal - but I haven't put any information yet.
  • 15.
    edited November 2010

    Okay, feel free to move out the stuff about carbon capture and storage for coal-fired plants, just make sure to include a very obvious link to it from the CCS page. Andrew Stacey recently posted a method for linking to sections of pages, in case that's what you need.

    Comment Source:Okay, feel free to move out the stuff about carbon capture and storage for coal-fired plants, just make sure to include a very obvious link to it from the [[CCS]] page. Andrew Stacey recently posted a method for linking to sections of pages, in case that's what you need.
  • 16.

    I personally find it difficult to remember the structure of pages where I have to scroll too much, so then I prefer a new page.

    For me, ideally, there would be different hierarchies for pages that go into more detail, or that give an overview of the topic.

    I wanted to create a link in the title but that didn't work. So I wrote a short line with the link.

    If you don't like what I did, tell me and I'll put it back as it was.

    Comment Source:I personally find it difficult to remember the structure of pages where I have to scroll too much, so then I prefer a new page. For me, ideally, there would be different hierarchies for pages that go into more detail, or that give an overview of the topic. I wanted to create a link in the title but that didn't work. So I wrote a short line with the link. If you don't like what I did, tell me and I'll put it back as it was.
  • 17.
    edited November 2010

    So now I need to push 7 times "Page down" on Carbon capture and storage, and 5 times on Carbon capture and storage for coal-fired power plants, which makes it easier to read - at least for me.

    Comment Source:So now I need to push 7 times "Page down" on [[Carbon capture and storage]], and 5 times on [[Carbon capture and storage for coal-fired power plants]], which makes it easier to read - at least for me.
  • 18.

    Links in titles don't work on Instiki, that is a limitation I ran into, too.

    There is the possibility to include floating context information, like you can see here on the nLab: AQFT, if you move your mouse over the box "context" in the upper right corner.

    Comment Source:Links in titles don't work on Instiki, that is a limitation I ran into, too. There is the possibility to include floating context information, like you can see here on the nLab: <a href="http://ncatlab.org/nlab/show/AQFT">AQFT</a>, if you move your mouse over the box "context" in the upper right corner.
  • 19.
    edited November 2010

    @Frederik,

    I think it's a matter of degree regarding wiki pages. Certainly very long pages that put absolutely everything on the same page are difficult to read, but likewise splitting closely related stuff off into too many makes it particularly difficult to read in current web-browsers (which can't be persuaded to do things like show two pages simultaneously side by side in the same browser window). "Carbon capture and storage for coal-fired power plants" sounds like a good topic of about the right degree of self-containedness.

    Comment Source:@Frederik, I think it's a matter of degree regarding wiki pages. Certainly very long pages that put absolutely everything on the same page are difficult to read, but likewise splitting closely related stuff off into too many makes it particularly difficult to read in current web-browsers (which can't be persuaded to do things like show two pages simultaneously side by side in the same browser window). "[[Carbon capture and storage for coal-fired power plants]]" sounds like a good topic of about the right degree of self-containedness.
  • 20.

    added reference

    Comment Source:added reference
  • 21.

    I added a tiny bit more information on plastics to the page Carbon capture and storage. People like to talk about sucking CO2 out of the air and making plastics, so I need to have numbers showing that carbon emissions exceed plastic manufacture by about 2 orders of magnitude.

    Comment Source:I added a tiny bit more information on [plastics](http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Carbon+capture+and+storage#Plastics) to the page [[Carbon capture and storage]]. People like to talk about sucking CO<sub>2</sub> out of the air and making plastics, so I need to have numbers showing that carbon emissions exceed plastic manufacture by about 2 orders of magnitude.
  • 22.

    What about adding a section to this page with ideas for carbon sequestration that are incomplete but which could plausibly be developed into effective technologies if inventive people work on them. Things that merit funding and further investigation.

    The one I'm thinking of is the idea of using algae blooms to extract CO2 from the atmosphere. Here is a recent posting about it in the New York Times green blog. That approach seems to be to let the Algae fall to the bottom of the ocean and settle as sediment for a "long" time.

    Here is a report on a discussion with Dr. James Lovelock, where the key idea is the pyrolysis of ocean algae. He is quoted there as saying that ocean algae represents over 70% of the Earth's biomass. He is a consultant to the company that puts out the blog, which is developing some proprietary "pyrolyzer" technology.

    Here is a picture of the cleanup effort for a large algae bloom that occurred off the coast of Quindao, China, in 2010. At that time it had grown to 150 square miles. The author states:

    Another option that I haven’t seen presented yet, is to dry the algae to use as feedstock in making biochar. If the 2010 bloom ends up being anywhere close to the 2008 one, that is potentially a lot of biochar.

    This incident also highlights the fact that the seeding of Algae blooms should not be taken lightly, as it is a significant form of geo-engineering.

    Comment Source:What about adding a section to this page with ideas for carbon sequestration that are incomplete but which could plausibly be developed into effective technologies if inventive people work on them. Things that merit funding and further investigation. The one I'm thinking of is the idea of using algae blooms to extract CO<sub>2</sub> from the atmosphere. Here is a recent posting about it in the New York Times [green blog](http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/19/a-way-to-trap-carbon-deep-in-the-ocean/). That approach seems to be to let the Algae fall to the bottom of the ocean and settle as sediment for a "long" time. Here is a report on a [discussion with Dr. James Lovelock](http://hines.blogspot.com/2010/05/ocean-algae-to-biochar-discussion-with.html), where the key idea is the pyrolysis of ocean algae. He is quoted there as saying that ocean algae represents over 70% of the Earth's biomass. He is a consultant to the company that puts out the blog, which is developing some proprietary "pyrolyzer" technology. Here is a picture of the cleanup effort for a [large algae bloom](http://www.greengeek.ca/china-dealing-with-massive-algae-bloom/) that occurred off the coast of Quindao, China, in 2010. At that time it had grown to 150 square miles. The author states: > Another option that I haven’t seen presented yet, is to dry the algae to use as feedstock in making biochar. If the 2010 bloom ends up being anywhere close to the 2008 one, that is potentially a lot of biochar. This incident also highlights the fact that the seeding of Algae blooms should not be taken lightly, as it is a significant form of geo-engineering.
  • 23.

    I suggest that we organize a public forum for posing, brainstorming and solving such "grand technological challenges." And find some appropriate terms of service, that would guarantee that all ideas contributed there posted will belong to the public domain.

    Here is how I would phrase the public challenge regarding algae-based carbon sequestration:

    Can we Effectively (and Safely) Harnesss Algae Blooms in the Ocean to Reduce Greenhouse Carbon Dioxide?

    Technology now exists for seeding the growth of large Algae blooms in the ocean. When Algae are constructed in the process of photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere, and converted into the organic molecules of the Algae cells. The larger the bloom, the more carbon is remove from the air. But in itself this does not remove carbon from the "carbon cycle," because when the algae decompose, or when the fish eat the algae and they decompose, the carbon is returned to the air. Some approaches are based upon trapping the sediment from the algae at the bottom of the ocean. But a really durable, stable solution needs to somehow convert that algae into a permanent form that will not spontaneously return into the carbon cycle. Nature itself did this when it fossilized algae sediment into petroleum. So how can we build technology to "fossilize" and store algae that are created by artificially grown algae blooms?

    Imagine a floating algae farm on the ocean, managed by robots run by solar power. Once the algae grows, what can the robots to fixate it? Now we'll enter the realm of speculative ideas. They could compress it into bricks. Perhaps they could put the bricks into sealed capsules and let them drop to the bottom of the ocean? But how long could a sealed capsule really last for? If they only last 50 years, we're just passing the buck a couple of generations. On the other hand, we are in desperate need of solutions now that would even get us to the next 50 years. Still let's try to do better. Maybe it would be better to bury the bricks underground in dry mines. But how would we get the bricks there? How much energy would that require, and how much carbon dioxide would be released in the process of getting them there. Maybe the robots could some fine chemical work, to bind the dead algae into some kind of durable molecules that could drop to the bottom of the sea, and would not be usable as food by existing organisms. But what if a new organism evolved that could eat them?

    Also note that we need to carefully consider the repercussions of large ocean algae farms on the environment of the ocean. Ideally we'd like a high efficiency machine on the ocean, which is using the full energy of the sun to bind CO2 into a permanent form. The smaller the factory can be, and the less stuff that it drops into the water, the better.

    Comment Source:I suggest that we organize a public forum for posing, brainstorming and solving such "grand technological challenges." And find some appropriate terms of service, that would guarantee that all ideas contributed there posted will belong to the <em>public domain</em>. Here is how I would phrase the public challenge regarding algae-based carbon sequestration: Can we Effectively (and Safely) Harnesss Algae Blooms in the Ocean to Reduce Greenhouse Carbon Dioxide? Technology now exists for seeding the growth of large Algae blooms in the ocean. When Algae are constructed in the process of photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere, and converted into the organic molecules of the Algae cells. The larger the bloom, the more carbon is remove from the air. But in itself this does not remove carbon from the "carbon cycle," because when the algae decompose, or when the fish eat the algae and they decompose, the carbon is returned to the air. Some approaches are based upon trapping the sediment from the algae at the bottom of the ocean. But a really durable, stable solution needs to somehow convert that algae into a permanent form that will not spontaneously return into the carbon cycle. Nature itself did this when it fossilized algae sediment into petroleum. So how can we build technology to "fossilize" and store algae that are created by artificially grown algae blooms? Imagine a floating algae farm on the ocean, managed by robots run by solar power. Once the algae grows, what can the robots to fixate it? Now we'll enter the realm of speculative ideas. They could compress it into bricks. Perhaps they could put the bricks into sealed capsules and let them drop to the bottom of the ocean? But how long could a sealed capsule really last for? If they only last 50 years, we're just passing the buck a couple of generations. On the other hand, we are in desperate need of solutions now that would even get us to the next 50 years. Still let's try to do better. Maybe it would be better to bury the bricks underground in dry mines. But how would we get the bricks there? How much energy would that require, and how much carbon dioxide would be released in the process of getting them there. Maybe the robots could some fine <it>chemical</it> work, to bind the dead algae into some kind of durable molecules that could drop to the bottom of the sea, and would not be usable as food by existing organisms. But what if a new organism evolved that could eat them? Also note that we need to carefully consider the repercussions of large ocean algae farms on the environment of the ocean. Ideally we'd like a high efficiency machine on the ocean, which is using the full energy of the sun to bind CO<sub>2</sub> into a permanent form. The smaller the factory can be, and the less stuff that it drops into the water, the better.
  • 24.

    How large would the Algae farm need to be in order to make a significant difference? Clearly it depends on how fast they grow. How much Algae would have to grow to remove the amount of carbon in a gallon of gasoline? To get a rough handle on it, can anyone estimate a conversion factor between acres of continually growing ocean Algae and gallons burned per day of gasoline?

    Comment Source:How large would the Algae farm need to be in order to make a significant difference? Clearly it depends on how fast they grow. How much Algae would have to grow to remove the amount of carbon in a gallon of gasoline? To get a rough handle on it, can anyone estimate a conversion factor between acres of continually growing ocean Algae and gallons burned per day of gasoline?
  • 25.

    David wrote:

    What about adding a section to this page with ideas for carbon sequestration that are incomplete but which could plausibly be developed into effective technologies if inventive people work on them. Things that merit funding and further investigation.

    Sure, go ahead! The idea is that we all go ahead and add things to the Azimuth Wiki, report our changes here... and then, if something thinks something is wrong with those changes, they can explain why, or go ahead and improve them.

    If you're interested in using algae blooms to sequester carbon dioxide, start by reading this:

    You just reminded me I need a link to this page from Carbon capture and storage, and I need to add the results of an iron fertilization experiment that was more successful than the experiment discussed here.

    Imagine a floating algae farm on the ocean, managed by robots run by solar power. Once the algae grows, what can the robots to fixate it? Now we'll enter the realm of speculative ideas. They could compress it into bricks. Perhaps they could put the bricks into sealed capsules and let them drop to the bottom of the ocean?

    Do some calculations and estimate how much algae it would take remove 10 gigatonnes of carbon from the air each year. Or... write a little blog article asking other people to do these calculations, and let me post it on the blog! I like the idea of technological challenges. If they get serious enough, we'd have to think about to make the ideas public-domain. Does anyone know an easy way? Just a copyright form on the blog?

    As a very crude guide: all the land plants on Earth absorb about 120 gigatonnes of carbon from the air, while the oceans absorb a total of 90 gigatonnes. But most of this is re-emitted. So for a 'complete solution to the carbon problem', you'd algal blooms that are equal in effect to about 10% of either one of these natural processes.

    Comment Source:David wrote: > What about adding a section to this page with ideas for carbon sequestration that are incomplete but which could plausibly be developed into effective technologies if inventive people work on them. Things that merit funding and further investigation. Sure, go ahead! The idea is that we all go ahead and add things to the Azimuth Wiki, report our changes here... and then, if something thinks something is _wrong_ with those changes, they can explain why, or go ahead and improve them. If you're interested in using algae blooms to sequester carbon dioxide, start by reading this: * [[Iron fertilization]] You just reminded me I need a link to this page from [[Carbon capture and storage]], and I need to add the results of an iron fertilization experiment that was more successful than the experiment discussed here. > Imagine a floating algae farm on the ocean, managed by robots run by solar power. Once the algae grows, what can the robots to fixate it? Now we'll enter the realm of speculative ideas. They could compress it into bricks. Perhaps they could put the bricks into sealed capsules and let them drop to the bottom of the ocean? Do some calculations and estimate how much algae it would take remove [[Carbon emissions|10 gigatonnes]] of carbon from the air each year. Or... write a little blog article asking other people to do these calculations, and let me post it on the blog! I like the idea of technological challenges. If they get serious enough, we'd have to think about to make the ideas public-domain. Does anyone know an easy way? Just a copyright form on the blog? As a very crude guide: all the land plants on Earth absorb about [[Carbon cycle|120 gigatonnes]] of carbon from the air, while the oceans absorb a total of [[Carbon cycle|90 gigatonnes]]. But most of this is re-emitted. So for a 'complete solution to the carbon problem', you'd algal blooms that are equal in effect to about 10% of either one of these natural processes.
  • 26.
    edited October 2012

    John wrote:

    I like the idea of technological challenges. If they get serious enough, we'd have to think about to make the ideas public-domain. Does anyone know an easy way? Just a copyright form on the blog?

    Not sure, but it would probably require a well-crafted statement or consent form on the site. It goes beyond copyright, because we're talking about the ideas themselves, not their expression in text. It would be unfortunate for a group of people to solve a great problem in a public forum, and for one of them to then a patent on what they view is their part of the idea. So I think this should be addressed from the outset, before going forward with an initiative that asks for public participation in the invention process. It is asking people to sacrifice some of their claims to intellectual property, but this can be looked at in a positive light, in that the great inventions that we need -- the breakthroughs in energy technology and envirormental restoration -- for the continuation of human life will best be solved by the collaborative efforts of many individuals; that the majority of people will gain more by collaborating, in terms of intellectual development, forming social connections, and having fun, than they would if they acted as an isolated "inventor" trying to solve the world's problems. As time goes forward, I think the group inventors will further and further outpace the isolated inventors. The internet would have changed the way that the steam engine was invented.

    Thanks for the reference to the article on Iron Fertilization.

    Comment Source:John wrote: > I like the idea of technological challenges. If they get serious enough, we'd have to think about to make the ideas public-domain. Does anyone know an easy way? Just a copyright form on the blog? Not sure, but it would probably require a well-crafted statement or consent form on the site. It goes beyond copyright, because we're talking about the ideas themselves, not their expression in text. It would be unfortunate for a group of people to solve a great problem in a public forum, and for one of them to then a patent on what they view is their part of the idea. So I think this should be addressed from the outset, before going forward with an initiative that asks for public participation in the invention process. It is asking people to sacrifice some of their claims to intellectual property, but this can be looked at in a positive light, in that the great inventions that we need -- the breakthroughs in energy technology and envirormental restoration -- for the continuation of human life will best be solved by the collaborative efforts of many individuals; that the majority of people will gain more by collaborating, in terms of intellectual development, forming social connections, and having fun, than they would if they acted as an isolated &quot;inventor&quot; trying to solve the world's problems. As time goes forward, I think the group inventors will further and further outpace the isolated inventors. The internet would have changed the way that the steam engine was invented. Thanks for the reference to the article on Iron Fertilization.
  • 27.
    edited October 2012

    I'm envisioning the site it as a separate instance of Instiki, still under the umbrella of the Azimuth project. You would want to have separate terms of service, login policies, etc. Also the usage patterns would be different, and you probably wouldn't want to fill up the primary Wiki with all kinds of half-baked ideas. (But half-baked doesn't necessarily mean unbakeable!)

    The primary contributors to the challenge pages would be the scientists. (Though anyone can step up to this role in the wiki universe.) If the challenges were well explained, both at an informal, and a technical level, this could be a draw for the public just to read it. People might be excited to be able to add any nuggets to the discussion. If they want acknowledgment, then that would motivate them to get a login. Maybe logins would be granted automatically, since they would just be functioning as signatures for individuals.

    Another draw for them would be the peer-review / feedback that the scientists could offer. At the minimum, whoever posts a challenge page would be following the thread.

    At the very least, it could be an educational and enjoyable process for many people.

    Comment Source:I'm envisioning the site it as a separate instance of Instiki, still under the umbrella of the Azimuth project. You would want to have separate terms of service, login policies, etc. Also the usage patterns would be different, and you probably wouldn't want to fill up the primary Wiki with all kinds of half-baked ideas. (But half-baked doesn't necessarily mean unbakeable!) The primary contributors to the challenge pages would be the scientists. (Though anyone can step up to this role in the wiki universe.) If the challenges were well explained, both at an informal, and a technical level, this could be a draw for the public just to read it. People might be excited to be able to add any nuggets to the discussion. If they want acknowledgment, then that would motivate them to get a login. Maybe logins would be granted automatically, since they would just be functioning as signatures for individuals. Another draw for them would be the peer-review / feedback that the scientists could offer. At the minimum, whoever posts a challenge page would be following the thread. At the very least, it could be an educational and enjoyable process for many people.
  • 28.

    I'm definitively not a lawyer, but you can't file for a patent your already publicly disclosed work once you've disclosed it. (There's some nuances about what counts as "public": talking to individuals may not count as public disclosure.) This just refers to filing; it doesn't have to have even been looked at, eg you can file a patent application the day before you talk about something.

    So the issue would be someone coming into things with an already-filed patent and discussing it and getting it into the proposed solution. Of course, there's still the issue of someone coming with a "silently patent filed" idea, having a lot of people spend time, energy, resources (including money, goodwill, etc) on something dependent on that and later having the patent owner try to "enforce their patent rights". But I think anything genuinely developed on the site wouldn't be patentable.

    Comment Source:I'm definitively _not_ a lawyer, but you can't file for a patent your already publicly disclosed work once you've disclosed it. (There's some nuances about what counts as "public": talking to individuals may not count as public disclosure.) This just refers to filing; it doesn't have to have even been looked at, eg you can file a patent application the day before you talk about something. So the issue would be someone coming into things with an already-filed patent and discussing it and getting it into the proposed solution. Of course, there's still the issue of someone coming with a "silently patent filed" idea, having a lot of people spend time, energy, resources (including money, goodwill, etc) on something dependent on that and later having the patent owner try to "enforce their patent rights". But I think anything genuinely developed on the site wouldn't be patentable.
  • 29.
    nad
    edited September 2012

    A priori I think that everything (at least in german patents this is so as I learned) which had been made public before patenting can't be patented anymore that is if you put some invention openly in the internet then actually nobody should be able to patent it. However it seems there are some juridicial loopholes, that is people at an organisation called OHANDA.org which try to establish some kind of creative commons for product invention recommended to actually patent something and make it only then "creative commons" at their website. But of course who wants to pay for all that patent business just for making a product invention patent free? I think there is quite a danger that especially trivia patents may be clogging environmental technology.

    for the algae - I actually could imagine that there are already some patents, did you check?

    You may want to read this entry in the Azimuth project about this issue. Given the feedback I have gotten sofar on the proposals contained there I got the impression that there is unfortunately not so much interest in discussing IP problems and possible workarounds.

    Comment Source:A priori I think that everything (at least in german patents this is so as I learned) which had been made public before patenting can't be patented anymore that is if you put some invention openly in the internet then actually nobody should be able to patent it. However it seems there are some juridicial loopholes, that is people at an organisation called <a href="www.ohanda.org">OHANDA.org</a> which try to establish some kind of creative commons for product invention recommended to actually patent something and make it only then "creative commons" at their website. But of course who wants to pay for all that patent business just for making a product invention patent free? I think there is quite a danger that especially trivia patents may be clogging environmental technology. for the algae - I actually could imagine that there are already some patents, did you check? You may want to read <a href="http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Tracing+intellectual+properties"> this entry in the Azimuth project about this issue. </a> Given the feedback I have gotten sofar on the proposals contained there I got the impression that there is unfortunately not so much interest in discussing IP problems and possible workarounds.
  • 30.

    You wrote: "As time goes forward, I think the group inventors will further and further outpace the isolated inventors. The internet would have changed the way that the steam engine was invented."

    by the way there are quite some number of inventor platforms in the internet, if you are really interested in these juridicial questions then it may be wortwhile to look at how these platforms deal with these questions. The sheer amount of suggestions at these platforms may actually become a problem.

    Comment Source:You wrote: "As time goes forward, I think the group inventors will further and further outpace the isolated inventors. The internet would have changed the way that the steam engine was invented." by the way there are quite some number of inventor platforms in the internet, if you are really interested in these juridicial questions then it may be wortwhile to look at how these platforms deal with these questions. The sheer amount of suggestions at these platforms may actually become a problem.
  • 31.
    edited October 2012

    I'm all for keeping it simple and avoiding getting bogged down in IP issues. Yet it is a reality that needs to be contended with if one wants to make practical inroads in solving large-scale problems that involve technology. The question I have now is can the IP for a public invention forum -- that is lead and "curated" by scientists -- be handled in a relatively simple way, at the outset with the proper notices on the site. The goal of the notices would be to clarify the intent of the site, so as to disuade people from posting who want their ideas to remain proprietary, and to encourage people to post who would like to make a community contribution. That's all we could hope for. And some attempt to make these clarifications, even if imperfect, would be better than leaving the whole matter in an ambiguous state.

    A clear public licence actually frees people from having to deal with licencing issues, if they just want to make contributions. When I just want to share my code, I feel pretty confident in putting a GPL on it. And yes there are all kinds of issues and questions about it if you dig into it, and it can be a source of interminable legal debates and ethical arguments. But for the most part, it is pretty clear and does the job.

    But there is some amount of upfront legal thinking that is involved in coming up with a good license. We now have powerful tools, and many intelligent people, that could be well channelled into group efforts to solve some of the problems involved in "saving the world." It would be a shame to reject this opportunity just because it involves some amount of nitty-gritty to get the ball rolling.

    Here is my idea of how to keep it as simple as possible. First, it doesn't have to start out as a separate instance of Instiki, as I suggested above. It can start out in one section of the forum + wiki, with challenge pages posted by scientists, etc. The legal terms would be clearly attached to the top of every challenge page. Associated with each challenge page would be a category of discussions in the Forum. Ideally, the submission form for any discussion in these categories should also contain a notice of the legal terms. Or present a confirmation popup. If it is not technically easy to have the submission form behave differently for different categories, then could it be modified to say something to the effect of: If you are posting to the Inventors Forum, then you agree to these legal terms.

    That only leaves the question of what the legal terms would say. Here let me state the message in naive terms:

    NOTICE: By contributing this post, your are hereby agreeing to relinquish all intellectual property claims on any of the ideas that are stated therein.

    Wouldn't that clarify the spirit and intent of the site?

    David Tweed said:

    So the issue would be someone coming into things with an already-filed patent and discussing it and getting it into the proposed solution. Of course, there's still the issue of someone coming with a "silently patent filed" idea, having a lot of people spend time, energy, resources (including money, goodwill, etc) on something dependent on that and later having the patent owner try to "enforce their patent rights".

    In either of these cases, by posting the idea to a site which contains the above mentioned Notice, they would be annulling their rights to the patent. The legal terms can make this inference explicit. Then they would be completely vulnerable to having the patent actually annulled in court. Any group that focuses on patent reform could take up the case, which would appear to be a low-hanging fruit.

    nad said:

    for the algae - I actually could imagine that there are already some patents, did you check?

    That's a good idea, to search for ideas. But any pre-existing patents are already facts. The most we can do is to ensure that whatever is newly invented by the group is given back to humanity.

    Comment Source:I'm all for keeping it simple and avoiding getting bogged down in IP issues. Yet it is a reality that needs to be contended with if one wants to make practical inroads in solving large-scale problems that involve technology. The question I have now is can the IP for a public invention forum -- that is lead and "curated" by scientists -- be handled in a relatively simple way, at the outset with the proper notices on the site. The goal of the notices would be to clarify the intent of the site, so as to disuade people from posting who want their ideas to remain proprietary, and to encourage people to post who would like to make a community contribution. That's all we could hope for. And _some_ attempt to make these clarifications, even if imperfect, would be better than leaving the whole matter in an ambiguous state. A clear public licence actually frees people from having to deal with licencing issues, if they just want to make contributions. When I just want to share my code, I feel pretty confident in putting a GPL on it. And yes there are all kinds of issues and questions about it if you dig into it, and it can be a source of interminable legal debates and ethical arguments. But for the most part, it is pretty clear and does the job. But there is some amount of upfront legal thinking that is involved in coming up with a good license. We now have powerful tools, and many intelligent people, that could be well channelled into group efforts to solve some of the problems involved in "saving the world." It would be a shame to reject this opportunity just because it involves some amount of nitty-gritty to get the ball rolling. Here is my idea of how to keep it as simple as possible. First, it doesn't have to start out as a separate instance of Instiki, as I suggested above. It can start out in one section of the forum + wiki, with challenge pages posted by scientists, etc. The legal terms would be clearly attached to the top of every challenge page. Associated with each challenge page would be a category of discussions in the Forum. Ideally, the submission form for any discussion in these categories should also contain a notice of the legal terms. Or present a confirmation popup. If it is not technically easy to have the submission form behave differently for different categories, then could it be modified to say something to the effect of: If you are posting to the Inventors Forum, then you agree to these legal terms. That only leaves the question of what the legal terms would say. Here let me state the message in naive terms: > NOTICE: By contributing this post, your are hereby agreeing to relinquish all intellectual property claims on any of the ideas that are stated therein. Wouldn't that clarify the spirit and intent of the site? David Tweed said: > So the issue would be someone coming into things with an already-filed patent and discussing it and getting it into the proposed solution. Of course, there's still the issue of someone coming with a "silently patent filed" idea, having a lot of people spend time, energy, resources (including money, goodwill, etc) on something dependent on that and later having the patent owner try to "enforce their patent rights". In either of these cases, by posting the idea to a site which contains the above mentioned Notice, they would be annulling their rights to the patent. The legal terms can make this inference explicit. Then they would be completely vulnerable to having the patent actually annulled in court. Any group that focuses on patent reform could take up the case, which would appear to be a low-hanging fruit. nad said: > for the algae - I actually could imagine that there are already some patents, did you check? That's a good idea, to search for ideas. But any pre-existing patents are already facts. The most we can do is to ensure that whatever is newly invented by the group is given back to humanity.
  • 32.

    David Tweed wrote:

    I'm definitively not a lawyer, but you can't file for a patent your already publicly disclosed work once you've disclosed it.

    Sorry I overlooked this basic point you made. I would consult with a lawyer to see what notice, if any, is recommended, given the goals and scenarios that were raised in this thread.

    Best Regards, Dave

    Comment Source:David Tweed wrote: > I'm definitively not a lawyer, but you can't file for a patent your already publicly disclosed work once you've disclosed it. Sorry I overlooked this basic point you made. I would consult with a lawyer to see what notice, if any, is recommended, given the goals and scenarios that were raised in this thread. Best Regards, Dave
  • 33.

    David Tanzer wrote:

    "By contributing this post, your are hereby agreeing to relinquish all intellectual property claims on any of the ideas that are stated therein."

    This actually may not work for legal reasons. Like in Germany the socalled "Urheberrecht" is something you have and can't give away. That is if you are the creator of something then you stay the creator of the thing you created and you can't give that away. You can give away rights of what to do with your creation but that is another thing. Or as wikipedia says:

    The Urhebergesetz is an authors’ right (“droit d’auteur”) or “monistic” style law. As such there is a special emphasis on the relation between the work and its actual author.[3] The right is perceived as an aspect of the author’s general personality right and as a general rule is therefore inalienable. This also means that there is no corporate copyright in Germany[4] and the fundamental rights cannot be transferred except by heritage.[5]

    I think actually this idea has its advantages. Like an author can't be forced to give away a creation. Moreover I prefer to know who was the creator of what, since authorship can also be an indication of quality, political direction etc. Like I had even suggested to introduce tags which indicate respective authors in a colloborative document, especially when it comes to recommendations (like they are on the software_visualization page). That is there are people who's recomendations I like almost always to follow and there are people who's recomendations have to be taken with precaution and there are people who's recomendations are almost always bullshit (in my private personal view) etc. Similar things holds for texts like there are texts which I understand almost immediately and then there are texts which need a big effort for understanding etc. In particular texts which need a lot of effort for understanding are not always automatically meaningful, that is here it may be especially helpful to know something about the author.

    Comment Source:David Tanzer wrote: >"By contributing this post, your are hereby agreeing to relinquish all intellectual property claims on any of the ideas that are stated therein." This actually may not work for legal reasons. Like in Germany the socalled <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_Germany">"Urheberrecht"</a> is something you have and can't give away. That is if you are the creator of something then you stay the creator of the thing you created and you can't give that away. You can give away rights of what to do with your creation but that is another thing. Or as wikipedia says: >The Urhebergesetz is an authors’ right (“droit d’auteur”) or “monistic” style law. As such there is a special emphasis on the relation between the work and its actual author.[3] The right is perceived as an aspect of the author’s general personality right and as a general rule is therefore inalienable. This also means that there is no corporate copyright in Germany[4] and the fundamental rights cannot be transferred except by heritage.[5] I think actually this idea has its advantages. Like an author can't be forced to give away a creation. Moreover I prefer to know who was the creator of what, since authorship can also be an indication of quality, political direction etc. Like I had even suggested to introduce tags which indicate respective authors in a colloborative document, especially when it comes to recommendations (like they are on the software_visualization page). That is there are people who's recomendations I like almost always to follow and there are people who's recomendations have to be taken with precaution and there are people who's recomendations are almost always bullshit (in my private personal view) etc. Similar things holds for texts like there are texts which I understand almost immediately and then there are texts which need a big effort for understanding etc. In particular texts which need a lot of effort for understanding are not always automatically meaningful, that is here it may be especially helpful to know something about the author.
  • 34.
    nad
    edited September 2012

    I should may be point out that I recently had to turn down a job offer from an american contractor. One reason was because the treaty asked me to transfer all my rights (at least thats how I interpreted the text and which I can't by german law) the other was that the treaty demanded that I pay taxes in California (while working here in Berlin).

    Comment Source:I should may be point out that I recently had to turn down a job offer from an american contractor. One reason was because the treaty asked me to transfer all my rights (at least thats how I interpreted the text and which I can't by german law) the other was that the treaty demanded that I pay taxes in California (while working here in Berlin).
  • 35.
    edited September 2012

    Something I was reading on another forum may have a bearing on the licensing/IP topic discussed in the later parts of this thread:

    Another reason it might be desirable to ensure any contributed stuff like computer programs (and maybe other concrete things like blueprints) is explicit about the usage licence is the possibility of the creator dying when the contribution has no licence, or a more restrictive licence than desired. Although for "pure ideas" this isn't a problem, for something like a piece of program code understanding "the ideas" and reimplementing it may be enough work to stop pursuit of a given direction, whereas being able to use the existing source might be a low enough barrier that things continue.

    (The case that prompted this is a discussion of a piece of research software that someone might have wanted to use, but the author unfortunately died before he got around to putting a formal licence on the code.)

    Comment Source:Something I was reading on another forum may have a bearing on the licensing/IP topic discussed in the later parts of this thread: Another reason it might be desirable to ensure any contributed stuff like computer programs (and maybe other concrete things like blueprints) is explicit about the usage licence is the possibility of the creator dying when the contribution has no licence, or a more restrictive licence than desired. Although for "pure ideas" this isn't a problem, for something like a piece of program code understanding "the ideas" and reimplementing it may be enough work to stop pursuit of a given direction, whereas being able to use the existing source might be a low enough barrier that things continue. (The case that prompted this is a discussion of a piece of research software that someone might have wanted to use, but the author unfortunately died before he got around to putting a formal licence on the code.)
  • 36.

    David T. wrote:

    But there is some amount of upfront legal thinking that is involved in coming up with a good license. We now have powerful tools, and many intelligent people, that could be well channelled into group efforts to solve some of the problems involved in “saving the world.” It would be a shame to reject this opportunity just because it involves some amount of nitty-gritty to get the ball rolling.

    I'd be very happy for you to do this. Personally I have trouble getting interested in these legal issues when this is all just a dream so far. But if you have the energy and knowledge to tackle these issues, that would be great.

    Here is my idea of how to keep it as simple as possible. First, it doesn’t have to start out as a separate instance of Instiki, as I suggested above. It can start out in one section of the forum + wiki, with challenge pages posted by scientists, etc. The legal terms would be clearly attached to the top of every challenge page. Associated with each challenge page would be a category of discussions in the Forum. Ideally, the submission form for any discussion in these categories should also contain a notice of the legal terms. Or present a confirmation popup. If it is not technically easy to have the submission form behave differently for different categories, then could it be modified to say something to the effect of: If you are posting to the Inventors Forum, then you agree to these legal terms.

    That sounds nice. But I believe many more people read the Azimuth Blog than the Forum. So, the blog is a good place to pose challenges. If people decide to work on them in a serious way, they can move to the forum. How about writing up such a challenge, with whatever legal boilerplate you want to add to it? You can do it following the pattern laid down in Blog articles in progress, which involves notifying people here on the Forum. Then we can discuss it, and then I can post it on the blog. You can be in charge of any discussions on that topic here on the Forum.

    Comment Source:David T. wrote: > But there is some amount of upfront legal thinking that is involved in coming up with a good license. We now have powerful tools, and many intelligent people, that could be well channelled into group efforts to solve some of the problems involved in “saving the world.” It would be a shame to reject this opportunity just because it involves some amount of nitty-gritty to get the ball rolling. I'd be very happy for you to do this. Personally I have trouble getting interested in these legal issues when this is all just a dream so far. But if you have the energy and knowledge to tackle these issues, that would be great. > Here is my idea of how to keep it as simple as possible. First, it doesn’t have to start out as a separate instance of Instiki, as I suggested above. It can start out in one section of the forum + wiki, with challenge pages posted by scientists, etc. The legal terms would be clearly attached to the top of every challenge page. Associated with each challenge page would be a category of discussions in the Forum. Ideally, the submission form for any discussion in these categories should also contain a notice of the legal terms. Or present a confirmation popup. If it is not technically easy to have the submission form behave differently for different categories, then could it be modified to say something to the effect of: If you are posting to the Inventors Forum, then you agree to these legal terms. That sounds nice. But I believe many more people read the Azimuth Blog than the Forum. So, the blog is a good place to pose challenges. If people decide to work on them in a serious way, they can move to the forum. How about writing up such a challenge, with whatever legal boilerplate you want to add to it? You can do it following the pattern laid down in [[Blog articles in progress]], which involves notifying people here on the Forum. Then we can discuss it, and then I can post it on the blog. You can be in charge of any discussions on that topic here on the Forum.
  • 37.

    John, thanks for the good feedback.

    The challenges that I can best write about now are in the area of knowledge representation:

    • Machine representation of scientific theories

    • Machine representation of conflicts between contending theories

    But I don't have the knowledge about environmental science, or climate modelling, to formulate one of these challenges, other than at a fairly generic level. Nevertheless, I'll take a start at one on:

    • Challenge - using ocean algae for carbon sequestration

    I actually think that if we started discussing the challenges on the associated forum threads, the discussion could take on some form and color that would be of interest to the public. This "living" material could be shaped into the blog article. If the discussion is fruitful, then small blog "press releases" could be generated from the thread, whenever significant new developments occur the discussion.

    Since the Challenge page is conceptually distinct from the blog article or articles that it would spawn off, I'm going to start the titles with "Challenge," and use category:challenge in the page text.

    If this picks up and we start enough of them -- I encourage everyone to ponder some challenges, that are interesting and/or potentially useful to the human race -- then I would suggest creating a forum category for Challenges.

    My idea is that whoever poses the challenge would be the steward for the discussion. They would be the lead writer of the blog articles -- unless they delegated that to someone else -- and there would be co-authorship for anyone who made a significant "inventive" contribution. All participants in the discussion would be acknowledged in the article.

    Comment Source:John, thanks for the good feedback. The challenges that I can best write about now are in the area of knowledge representation: * Machine representation of scientific theories * Machine representation of conflicts between contending theories But I don't have the knowledge about environmental science, or climate modelling, to formulate one of these challenges, other than at a fairly generic level. Nevertheless, I'll take a start at one on: * Challenge - using ocean algae for carbon sequestration I actually think that if we started discussing the challenges on the associated forum threads, the discussion could take on some form and color that would be of interest to the public. This "living" material could be shaped into the blog article. If the discussion is fruitful, then small blog "press releases" could be generated from the thread, whenever significant new developments occur the discussion. Since the Challenge page is conceptually distinct from the blog article or articles that it would spawn off, I'm going to start the titles with "Challenge," and use category:challenge in the page text. If this picks up and we start enough of them -- I encourage everyone to ponder some challenges, that are interesting and/or potentially useful to the human race -- then I would suggest creating a forum category for Challenges. My idea is that whoever poses the challenge would be the steward for the discussion. They would be the lead writer of the blog articles -- unless they delegated that to someone else -- and there would be co-authorship for anyone who made a significant "inventive" contribution. All participants in the discussion would be acknowledged in the article.
  • 38.
    edited September 2012

    All this sound great. As always, it's the person who takes the initiative and does something who reaps the prestige from having done it.

    Personally, however, I find the blog to be a much better way of soliciting expert opinions than the Forum. Many more people read it, so there's a vastly higher chance of getting good ideas about, say, carbon sequestration via ocean algae. I'm not completely ignorant of this topic, but most of what I know is summarized on the Iron fertilization page. So, I suggest writing a short 'challenge' on this subject, letting me edit it and add stuff, seeing if anyone else has something to say, and then fairly quickly throwing it onto the blog as a post by you.

    (But first I want to get your other blog post published. Please read what Jacob and I wrote about it here, look over that article, make any further changes you want, and kick Jacob Biamonte's butt until he coughs up the necessary Petri net diagram.)

    Comment Source:All this sound great. As always, it's the person who takes the initiative and does something who reaps the prestige from having done it. Personally, however, I find the blog to be a much better way of soliciting expert opinions than the Forum. Many more people read it, so there's a vastly higher chance of getting good ideas about, say, carbon sequestration via ocean algae. I'm not completely ignorant of this topic, but most of what I know is summarized on the [[Iron fertilization]] page. So, I suggest writing a short 'challenge' on this subject, letting me edit it and add stuff, seeing if anyone else has something to say, and then fairly quickly throwing it onto the blog as a post by you. (But first I want to get your other blog post published. Please read what Jacob and I wrote about it [here](http://forum.azimuthproject.org/discussion/1049/blog-petri-net-programming-part-1/?Focus=7413#Comment_7413), look over that article, make any further changes you want, and kick Jacob Biamonte's butt until he coughs up the necessary Petri net diagram.)
  • 39.
    edited November 2012

    John wrote:

    You just reminded me I need a link to this page from Carbon capture and storage, and I need to add the results of an iron fertilization experiment that was more successful than the experiment discussed here.

    I just added the link from Carbon capture and storage and storage to Iron fertilization, along with a couple of sentences stating the general idea. My description is necessary generic, because I don't know much about the subject -- so you may want to tighten up those statements.

    John, I didn't see your addition of the positive results to the iron fertilization page -- can you post at least a sketch of what you know about it?

    The background to this is that I am starting my blog article on the challenge of using Algae to capture carbon. I will start a discussion thread on it, in the relatively near future.

    An old friend of mine introduced me to this idea some years back. He is a science teacher with a deep grasp, and also a concerned citizen of the world. I am trying to get him interested in the Azimuth project. As part of the invitation, I offered him co-authorship of the blog article, provided that he makes a significant contribution to the writing of the article (which I believe he can do).

    Comment Source:John wrote: > * [[Iron fertilization]] > You just reminded me I need a link to this page from [[Carbon capture and storage]], and I need to add the results of an iron fertilization experiment that was more successful than the experiment discussed here. I just added the link from [[Carbon capture and storage]] and storage to [[Iron fertilization]], along with a couple of sentences stating the general idea. My description is necessary generic, because I don't know much about the subject -- so you may want to tighten up those statements. John, I didn't see your addition of the positive results to the iron fertilization page -- can you post at least a sketch of what you know about it? The background to this is that I am starting my blog article on the challenge of using Algae to capture carbon. I will start a discussion thread on it, in the relatively near future. An old friend of mine introduced me to this idea some years back. He is a science teacher with a deep grasp, and also a concerned citizen of the world. I am trying to get him interested in the Azimuth project. As part of the invitation, I offered him co-authorship of the blog article, provided that he makes a significant contribution to the writing of the article (which I believe he can do).
  • 40.

    I've added material about Benford's CROPS (Crop residue oceanic permanent sequestration) scheme to this page:

    By the way, I should add that all the references on this page are coming in handy now that I'm giving a talk about this! So, let me thank everyone who contributed to this page!

    Comment Source:I've added material about Benford's [CROPS (Crop residue oceanic permanent sequestration)](http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Carbon+capture+and+storage#CROPS) scheme to this page: * [Carbon capture and storage](http://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Carbon+capture+and+storage). By the way, I should add that all the references on this page are coming in handy now that I'm giving a talk about this! So, let me thank everyone who contributed to this page!
  • 41.

    A long time ago David Tanzer wrote:

    John, I didn’t see your addition of the positive results to the iron fertilization page – can you post at least a sketch of what you know about it?

    It turned out the positive results weren't quite so positive. I wrote about it on the iron fertilization page:

    Another scientist, Kenneth Coale, said on the BBC:

    "To date we've conducted experiments in what amounts to 0.04% of the ocean's surface," he told BBC News.

    "All have indicated that iron is the key factor controlling phytoplankton growth, and most have indicated that there is carbon flux (towards the sea floor)---this is one that didn't."

    Coale is talking about the experiment led by Naqvi and Smetacek. If you read Coale's quote, you might think other experiments were getting significant amounts of carbon going to the sea floor. But Coale's paper on his own experiment:

    says that while iron stimulated the growth of phytoplankton, "the magnitude of the biological and geochemical response was much smaller than predicted".

    Comment Source:A long time ago David Tanzer wrote: > John, I didn’t see your addition of the positive results to the iron fertilization page – can you post at least a sketch of what you know about it? It turned out the positive results weren't quite so positive. I wrote about it on the [[iron fertilization]] page: > Another scientist, Kenneth Coale, [said on the BBC](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7959570.stm): > : "To date we've conducted experiments in what amounts to 0.04% of the ocean's surface," he told BBC News. > : "All have indicated that iron is the key factor controlling phytoplankton growth, and most have indicated that there is carbon flux (towards the sea floor)---this is one that didn't." > Coale is talking about the experiment led by Naqvi and Smetacek. If you read Coale's quote, you might think other experiments were getting significant amounts of carbon going to the sea floor. But Coale's paper on his own experiment: > * Kenneth Coale _et al._, [A massive phytoplankton bloom induced by an ecosystem-scale iron fertilization experiment in the equatorial Pacific Ocean](http://www.unioviedo.es/marioquevedo/eco3/AGN_coale_et_al_96_nature.pdf), _Nature_ **383** (10 October 1996) 495--501. > says that while iron stimulated the growth of phytoplankton, "the magnitude of the biological and geochemical response was much smaller than predicted".
Sign In or Register to comment.