Nick Pope
Contributor
A team of scientists is looking to dump chemicals into waters off the coast of Massachusetts this summer to research whether doing so could be an effective counter to ocean acidification and climate change, according to The Wall Street Journal.
The project would see researchers from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) pour approximately 6,000 gallons of sodium hydroxide — a component of lye — into waters ten miles away from Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, in August 2024, according to the WSJ. The research project, estimated to cost about $10 million in total, will receive taxpayer funds from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) provided the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signs off on releasing the chemicals.
The underlying concept is to see if the basic sodium hydroxide can reduce the acidity of ocean waters and make those waters more efficient repositories of carbon dioxide, according to the WSJ. Sodium hydroxide is a common ingredient in soaps and cleaning solutions, and it can be harmful to humans in high concentrations, according to the Tennessee Department of Health. (RELATED: Eco-Activists, Climate Scientists Quietly Met To Discuss Tinkering With The Sun)
Scientists Think They’ve Found A New Remedy For Climate Change https://t.co/OEPJDhVfXW
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) May 17, 2022
“When you have heartburn, you eat a Tums that dissolves and makes the liquid in your stomach less acidic,” Adam Subhas, a WHOI scientist who is poised to serve as the project’s main investigator, told the WSJ. “By analogy, we’re adding this alkaline material to seawater, and it is letting the ocean take up more CO2 without provoking more ocean acidification. Everything that we’re seeing so far is that it is environmentally safe.”
NOAA will provide some of the funding for the project, which is also being supported financially by private donors and two philanthropic organizations, according to the WSJ. Neither NOAA nor WHOI immediately responded to requests for comment, which included inquiries about the identities of the organizations and donors backing the project.
“EPA will follow the permitting process as described in the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act regulations before reaching a final determination to approve or deny the permit application,” a spokesperson for the agency told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Once EPA receives a complete permit application, the agency will provide notice to the public and will invite public comment on the permit application and EPA tentative determination on whether to issue a permit.”
WHOI’s intention to test the efficacy of tinkering with ocean chemistry reflects a wider emergent trend of climate scientists pushing so-called “geoengineering” projects, according to the WSJ. The basic idea of geoengineering is altering some physical or chemical aspect of an environmental system in order to counteract climate change.
How do marine scientists find love among the all
test tubes and dive gear?@Capenewsdotnet tracked down three happy couples at #WHOI who share the secret to their (marine) chemistry: https://t.co/rZU1rrjz6h pic.twitter.com/ZKNBeVkzYd— Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) (@WHOI) February 14, 2024
Other geoengineering projects that are being considered or funded by the government, private sector or major donors include systems that shoot particles 60,000 feet into the air to reflect sunlight and cool the atmosphere, and another project that aims to enlarge and brighten clouds to increase reflectivity, according to the WSJ.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
How much CO2 is generated in the creation of this sodium hydroxide?
Likely more than will be absorbed. Dumping magnesium carbonate into the ocean was a little suspect, but sodium hydroxide is a lot insane.
Correction – magnesium hydroxide.
But wait! Leftists are allowed to use optional starting and stopping, when it comes to counting C02, ya see, the C02 that is created in making the chemical is not counted, in keeping with their overly idealized view of everything, where they always do good because their hearts are in the right place.
Two-thirds of Republicans under 30 agree with the climate change agenda.
They have been brainwashed as well.
Joe Biden would calculate it as 400 Billion Trillion Quadrillion Million plus parts and labor.
The process uses electrolysis. Chlorine one end and sodium the other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloralkali_process.
Most available and cheapest source of electrical energy for electrolysis is stilll thermal generation.
Better and much cheaper sodium hydroxide is produced by ash from burning wood and other cellulose biomass, rather than by electrolysis. Ironically, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute is one of many biomass combustion opponents who will, none the less, purchase cellulose ash to accomplish this pointless exercise.
6000 tons in literally less than a drop in the ocean, and “acidification” isn’t a real problem.
Did anyone ask what happened to the Adirondak and Catskill lakes that acid rain warriors dumped sodium bicarbonate into back in the 80’s? (Hint: that didn’t work, either. And the acid rain problem wasn’t a problem much anymore. Still, lots of grant money was spent).
It’s not just the CO2.
If it is produced by the chloralkali process then the counterpart is chlorine. The eventual return of chlorine to the environment as hydrochloric acid (chloride) will make the cycle net neutral chemically.
This is the dumbest idea I’ve seen in a long time, possibly ever.
I’d say this idea ranks right up there with deliberate injections of Sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere to dim the sun. I can remember when atmospheric Sulfur dioxide was considered a pollutant.
We must pollute the oceans in order to save them.
Much of the water in the world’s oceans is surrounded by alkaline rocks which buffers the pH of the ocean.
There is no indication that the oceans are becoming less alkaline anyway.
As this compendium of all oceans surface pH measurements since around 1910 shows
And anyone wants to use the Aloha site..
here are its measurements….
And here are the Aloha site measurements , graphed on an expanded vertical axis against bio-proxy data from Flinders Reef…
Sounds like WHOI to me.
What could go wrong with trying to play God? Law of unintended consequences will come into play
It’s weird how they are so ready to dump caustic waste into the ocean but everything, anything else anyone wants to do needs environmental assessments!!!
And what happened to ocean fertilization using iron dust – that was rejected outright back around 2000 (and made me suspicious of the whole carbon catastrophe crowd) – much easier on the environment and even if C02 isn’t the boogeyman, the fish in the sea get a boost from all the extra plankton and other food.
Perhaps someone needs to to a FOI request to see what waiver or licence to dump this stuff in the sea they’ve got. Perhaps making the paperwork (and whoever signed off on it) public might make them think twice about their accountability.
So far there is zero accountability for any of this.
My understanding is that seawater is already alkaline, but just a bit less alkaline than in the past, definitely not acidic Anyone near a seashore have any ph test strips so that they can report back?
“but just a bit less alkaline than in the past”
See the graphs further up the thread…. the answer is “no evidence of that”.. !
What they are actually doing is making the water MORE CAUSTIC.
And we know how well caustic soda cleans drains. !
” near a seashore ”
Not worth doing. Studies show near-shore waters are impacted by numerous things that change the pH. About 8 years ago, when encountering this issue, I searched and found many papers. You will also find the literature on the ocean being highly buffered.
‘Acid oceans’ – this situation begs for an opportunity to have enviros expose their sheer science ignorance. For comparison of how such folks steer into their own self-created brick walls, I forget where I saw the video link – might have been right here at WUWT – but there was a U.S. House member at a hearing a while back concerning some angle of the climate issue, and he asked the hearing witnesses if they knew or could guess what the percentage was of CO2 in the atmosphere. They had no clue, and when he prodded them, they were guessing 10 – 20%. It was embarrassing.
What would be entertaining in this case would be to do a nationwide poll of enviro-activists to have them guess what the overall average is for the world’s oceans on the pH scale. I had to laugh when I found out that former House Republican Rep Bob Inglis (beloved by Naomi Oreskes in her “Merchants of Doubt” documentary movie) brought out the remains of an egg in a jar of vinegar during his final House hearing, in order to bring attention to the problem of ocean acidification (2:11:47 point here). That, in the face of the U.S. E.P.A. placing the world’s oceans’ overall pH level not on the acid side of the scale …….
Why some “average” value which at best is less meaningful than “average world temperature”. Real ocean pH values vary considerably from place to place.
And over time, often cyclically.
See graph up near the top of Flinders Reef pH.
Yes – and you may have missed my overall point. The Al Gore mob, taking measurements only from shore areas, have declared the entire collections of oceans to be on the acid side and are getting more acidic. They are not, to any appreciable extent anywhere as a whole. Former Rep Inglis’ ‘eggs in vinegar’ analogy about the worldwide trend of ocean pH level is no different that the rest of the Gore mob saying the Arctic is 4x warmer, thus the planet is warmer.
They’re not scientists. They’re technically trained meatheads.
Scientists Look to
Fight Climate Changecontinue to stay relevant and pay the rent by doing something completely inane and laughable to the Ocean Near Martha’s VineyardThe inhabitants of Marthas Vinyard couldn’t handle 25 migrants what makes these lunatics think that the Vinyardians will be OK with dumping chemicals in “their” ocean front.
they say “can reduce the acidity of ocean waters”..
This has to be one of the most fatuous, gormless and anti-scientific comments I have ever seen !
Can anyone point to these “acidic” sea waters ?
Methinks whomever at NOAA approved this study had a degree in PoliSci or English Lit.
Here comes the first load….
…. only because they couldn’t show a picture of the other end. !
Well, they said his Chef would be in to fix supper as soon as he “washes up.”
A good dose of caustic soda should help clean out his drain.!
Dumping approximately 1 tanker truck of caustic into the ocean is science? I’m running the wrong hustle.
And it costs $10 million!
Two comments:
And this is how the world ends – with a raft of ‘good intentions’ backed up with wishful thinking and zero common sense.
The Western world.
Aha, an optimist! 😉
One more comment: Based on the pH alone, sodium hydroxide is classified as a hazardous waste (toxic waste) when it’s disposed of. And by dumping it into the ocean, the researchers are definitely disposing of it. So technically, they’re dumping hazardous waste into the ocean near Martha’s Vineyard.
And the EPA is OK with this?
Right. RQ for sodium hydroxide is 1000 lbs. They’re planning on exceeding that limit by over 100x.
check Party chredentials
This chemical dump occurs a lot more often than you might think.
As an example, the Gladstone Alumina Refinery, (Qld Australia), dumps excess alkaline salts into the water adjacent to their wharf structure. The fluid waste includes sodium hydroxide and iron oxides which are surplus to the process needs and which cannot be settled out at the red mud dam.
So why not just study the impact of this discharge?
This process is very common at alumina refineries.
As always, the solution to pollution is dilution, just ask an EPA employee to verify any pollution limit, they are often stated in parts per million rather than an absolute discharge, eg kg/day.
there simply aren’t the words to describe the childishness of this venture – they are beyond deluded and pathetic yet call themselves scientists.
we really are in a dark age of science
The drunken frat-boys have got to stop writing grant proposals when they’re stoned – gullible people might actually take them seriously.
I couldn’t locate any details on the process they would use.
What is the concentration?
Do they intend to spray over a large area?
Maybe pump it into one location.
Do they understand fluid dynamics?
The whales just can’t catch a break off the East Coast.
Reducing the acidity? The liars. Increasing the alkalinity they mean.
I have a suggestion. Dump those scientists in the ocean off Martha’s Vineyard.
We have one in The UK too.
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2024/02/13/st-ives-bay-carbon-capture-trial-very-low-risk-report/
Apart from the idiot with a gun value, I’m not clear as to how or what they are going to be measuring. How will they measure success or failure? There’s no way to determine the atmospheric CO2 change, the stuff will quickly become well mixed into the Ocean …
If this scheme is such a great idea, why is it not being conducted right off the beach where the Obamas have their Matha’s Vineyard mansion. Not only could the ultra-green Obamas enjoy being actual participants, but the proximity of the of the researchers could help the Obamas improve water safety at their beach.
“…. 6,000 gallons of sodium hydroxide…”
How many gallons of water in the world’s oceans?
6000 gallons of NaOH isn’t going to do anything meaningful, except for a very brief period, in the vicinity of the discharge and immediately after the discharge. Any data they collect will be of dubious quality, at best.
“sodium hydroxide — a component of lye”
Sodium hydroxide IS lye, once it’s dissolved in water.
This dump will be deadly for any marine life in the vicinity, but the people doing it apparently don’t care.
And how many animals is this going to kill?
Here is the ‘tell’. Consensus climate is beginning to worry that global warming isn’t turning out to be a problem. They are also worrying (having caused to be spent $5 trillion on solutions that turned out to not work even if there had been something to worry about) and wreaking havoc, death and destruction with Policy-Caused global economic, agricultural, industrial disasters, all that can be laid at their feet, that they need to get ahead of the parade.
With geoengineering in place, when nothing bad happens re climate, they can claim they saved us all and the world in the Nick of time! Geoengineering is to “hide the real decline in crisis climate worry”.
We have to slay the environment to save it!
Why have the most ignorant people been allowed to play with the most dangerous toys with the government’s blessing?
Every time I read about some absurd liberal scheme, the phrase “unintended consequences” pops into my head.
6000 gallons is a miniscule bit of water, about 22 cubic meters. By comparison, an Olympic-sized swimming pool contains over 600,000 gallons.
I don’t think think this has anything to do with solving the so-called “ocean acidification” problem (contrary to what was stated above). I think the lye solution will merely absorb some CO2 and convert it into limestone and water. Not clear how they plan to measure the effects of this nano-experiment.
2 NaOH + CO2 → Na2CO3 + H2O
In drinking water treatment NaOH can be used, not just for pH adjustment but to remove carbonate hardness and non-carbonate hardness. (Calcium and magnesium bicarbonates or, say, calcium chloride.)
The end result of the chemical reactions to convert both types of hardness into relatively insoluble forms which will settle out. (Called “sludge” in the drinking water process.)
Any change in the pH is a result of a chemical reaction, not the cause.
At best they make some water more basic not less acidic … they can’t even get the scientific terms right …
The CO2 in ocean forms the very weak acid Carbonic Acid, H2CO3, which easily decomposes back into H2O water and CO2. NaOH is a very strong base, which will raise the pH much more than H2CO3 can lower it, even when added in equal amounts. I don’t know which scientists are behind this, but this has a lot of potential of killing marine life. I’ve always said that I will probably get arrested once people start pushing the environment to do what they think it’s right, and that it can be proven to be wrong. These people are operating outside the standards of doing extensive studies and are more likely to create a big environmental problem.
JBVigo, PhD
Environmental Science & Engineering
I wonder how the fish and other ocean dwellers are going to react to having a load of sodium hydroxide dumped into their environment for no good reason. They can consult the birds near the wind-turbines for advice.
“…to see if the basic sodium hydroxide can reduce the acidity of ocean waters…”
I guess I missed the announcement that ocean water is now acidic.
Have the researchers released any of the results from their lab testing? They did test, right? Right??
They did test. With appallingly bad methodology giving really crap results – the studies were laughably flawed.
G’Day Richard,
“They did test”
Thank you for the reply, much appreciated. I had a hunch, you confirmed it. No ‘positive’ lab test, so “Let’s just go full scale and see what happens”.
This is asking for trouble.
What could possibly go wrong?
Salt water is alkali. pH is about 7.7, depending on the ocean. Doing this will increase alkalinity, and perturb natural systems.
And keep in mind that the term “alkaline” is related to “alkalinity” but not the same.
Water with a pH below 7.0 is not “alkaline” but can still (and probably does) have “alkalinity”.
“Alkaline” and “Acidic” refer to the pH scale while “alkalinity” has more to do with a solutions chemical resistance to a change in pH. Buffering. If the free hydrogen (or hydroxide, OH) gets tied up in other chemical reactions then the pH is not affected.
LOTS of buffering in the ocean.
I know. Oversimplified.
Here comes a bad analogy. (Making this up as I type.)
Pour some water into a pan. Measure how deep the water is. Now pour in some sand. Level it out. Measure how deep the water is above the sand. It will be less than before the sand was added.
The sand will tie up some of the water.
The sand is the “buffer”.
6,000 gallons in the ocean????
Seems like homeopathy…
$10 million in total????
Seems speculative for dumping 6,000 gallons of anything anywhere (short of on the Moon).
Yeah. A little over 50,000 lbs.
How much does the water weigh in the targeted area? How much do the dissolved chemicals weigh in the water in the area targeted?
If they bother to do follow-up sampling, how will they account for ocean currents carrying their test run out of the application area?
Not like any of these schemes could ever go wrong, huh?
Well, first of all, we should say a prayer for every one of those poor, 10 million dollars being killed for the sake of sheer stupidity and foolishness. What a waste. But secondly, no real environmentalist would ever, in a million years sign off on this so-called “study”, due to the danger it would pose to the local flora and fauna. This would essentially create a toxic plume which would eventually disperse, but in the meantime, it could wreak havoc on the local environment.
6,000 gallons? $10MM? I’ll do it for $5MM. Half price, what a savings!!