The recent announcement by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) to conduct an experiment involving the dumping of lye into the ocean is a striking example of the overzealous and poorly thought-out measures being taken under the guise of combating climate change. This initiative, detailed in a July 7th Nantucket Current article, is fraught with scientific uncertainties and potential environmental hazards that far outweigh any speculative benefits.
According to the article, WHOI plans to conduct a geoengineering experiment aimed at reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels by adding alkaline substances, specifically lye, to the ocean. The underlying hypothesis is that the addition of lye will increase the ocean’s alkalinity, enhancing its ability to absorb CO₂ from the atmosphere.
Starting this August, the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution will conduct a small-scale study on the effects of ocean alkalinity enhancement, a process that artificially increases the pH of ocean water to combat human-caused ocean acidification. The experiment will be conducted in the waters southwest of Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard.
Dubbed the “LOC-NESS” project – short for Locking away Ocean Carbon in the Northeast Shelf and Slope – the experiment involves the dumping of 20 metric tonnes of sodium hydroxide (also known as lye and caustic soda) and up to 75 kilograms of tracer dye into the ocean followed by five days of on-site, 24-hour monitoring of alkalinity dispersal, CO2 uptake, and environmental impacts.
https://nantucketcurrent.com/news/whoi-plans-experiment-to-combat-climate-change-in-waters-southwest-of-nantucket
The science behind this experiment is speculative at best. The ocean’s complex chemistry and the myriad of variables that affect carbon sequestration processes make it difficult to predict the outcomes of such an intervention accurately. There are significant uncertainties regarding the extent to which increased alkalinity will actually lead to enhanced CO₂ absorption.
In a press release, the EPA said that it “does not anticipate any measurable environmental or other impacts beyond the monitoring periods of the study” and Woods Hole’s website stresses that because of the purity of sodium hydroxide, “the effects on water quality are limited only to the effect on pH.”
https://nantucketcurrent.com/news/whoi-plans-experiment-to-combat-climate-change-in-waters-southwest-of-nantucket
Woah, tell that to the fish and other organisms you poison with Lye. Might as well be dynamite fishing.
We will track the addition of 20 tonnes of NaOH for ~5 days, resulting in the potential sequestration of up to 20 tonnes of CO2. This experiment is small enough in scale that any immediate impacts will be minimal, and any alkalinity effects will, by the end of the experiments, be fully diluted back to baseline conditions.
https://nantucket-current.nyc3.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/assets/1-LOCNESS_PermitApplication_Resubmission4_29042024_South-of-Mass.pdf
Moreover, the potential ecological impacts of dumping a caustic substance like lye into the ocean cannot be overstated. Lye, or sodium hydroxide, is a strong base that can cause severe chemical burns and damage marine life if not properly managed. There are risks associated with altering the ocean’s chemistry, including potential harm to marine ecosystems and the organisms that inhabit them.
The experiment’s potential environmental consequences are manifold. Altering ocean alkalinity could disrupt the delicate balance of marine ecosystems. The effects on phytoplankton, which form the base of the oceanic food web, are particularly concerning. These microorganisms are crucial for carbon cycling and any significant changes to their environment could have cascading effects throughout the ecosystem.
Geoengineering opponents are skeptical of the scientists’ confidence and warn that human interventions in the environment often have unintended consequences.
https://nantucketcurrent.com/news/whoi-plans-experiment-to-combat-climate-change-in-waters-southwest-of-nantucket
Additionally, the introduction of lye could lead to localized areas of high pH, which might harm marine life, particularly species that are sensitive to changes in their environment. This is a significant risk that appears to be downplayed in the pursuit of geoengineering solutions.
Geoengineering should not be seen as a viable approach to environmental management. The presumed threats associated with climate change should not drive us to such extreme measures.
In light of the significant uncertainties and potential risks associated with this experiment, it is crucial to exercise caution. Dumping lye into the ocean without a comprehensive understanding of the potential impacts is a reckless approach that could lead to unforeseen and possibly irreversible damage.
Critics argue that the potential negative consequences of such experiments far outweigh any theoretical benefits, particularly given the current lack of understanding of oceanic chemical processes and the potential for unintended consequences.
The WHOI’s plan to dump lye into the ocean as a means to address a speculative problem is a deeply flawed and dangerous initiative. The scientific uncertainties and potential environmental risks associated with this experiment far outweigh any speculative benefits. Geoengineering should not be seen as a viable approach to environmental management and the presumed threats associated with climate change should not drive us to such extreme measures.
As we continue to explore ways to maintain a healthy environment, it is imperative that we prioritize approaches that are grounded in solid science and that minimize risks to our planet’s ecosystems. We must ensure that we do not undertake interventions that could cause more harm than good. The WHOI experiment serves as a stark reminder of the need for prudence and responsibility in our efforts to manage our natural resources, as well as how fanatic obeisance to ideology tosses all that out the window.
This reckless lye-dumping experiment is a testament to the desperation and shortsightedness that often accompany geoengineering proposals. Instead of turning to such high-risk strategies, we should focus on realistic and evidence-based environmental practices, ensuring a healthier and more stable environment for future generations.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If the W.H.O is pronounded “who,” then the WHOI must be “hooey.”
Even those experts have to know that no amount of human experimental dumping can amount literally to more than a drop in the ocean.
Hey, this lobster tastes like soap all of a sudden. It is really red, however.
That’s the butter. Or the chef.
The soapy feel of “Saponification” from lye is the feel of your body fat being pulled from your skin.
From the Wikipedia entry for lutefisk:
The chemical release isn’t the problem.
The concatenation of false premise reasoning (ocean “acidification”, the feasibility of geoengineering), propaganda, hubris, and financial waste are the problem.
The only practical instrumentation of such an experiment is to measure the change of ph in the area of the release, which can only the predicted conclusion. The “sequestration” is potential — only theoretical — and cannot be measured in the experimental setting (and is extremely unlikely, as well as unlikely to be reproducible).
Notably, the production of lye by electrolysis of sea water requires many MWh of electricity per ton(ne), provded in the main by combustion of coal, petroleum, and/or natural gas. Likewise, the logistics train and this experiment itself required combustion of megatons of diesel and gasoline. Given the relative densities of the materials, it is doubtful that one could attain a 1:1 “yield” (if that is the word for “sequestered” CO2), and even less likely that the sequestered mass will be greater than the emissions of the processes that produced and delivered the NaOH. The result cannot be justified by the means.
There is nothing in the experiment that justifies doing it outside of a lab — or even in a swimming pool (where simple maintenace conducts the same operations many times in a week for a lot less money). This isn’t science, or even an engineering test, but it is theater.
Good analysis. While this has got to be one of the dumbest experiments done by so-called marine scientists the ocean often suffers far worse. Delicate no ! “The experiment’s potential environmental consequences are manifold. Altering ocean alkalinity could disrupt the delicate balance of marine ecosystems.”
From my ancient Merck Index. “NaOH solutions are used to neutralize acid and make sodium salts.” More salt it ocean, probably not. Lots of failing ocean restoration going on, save inadequate follow-up we might learn something. WHOI used to be “the” authority.
The NaOH is electrolized from seawater, and is released so slowly that it makes little differrence.
It is as dangerous to sealife, and as pointless, as would be dumping rock salt solution over the same area.
The hazard comes from handling it from the manufacture to the site of the “experiment.”
The theoretical gain is less than the CO2 emitted for the conduct of the “experiment,” IMO likely to be less by several orders of magnitude. The “experiment” is conducted, daily, at any desalinization plant, where waste water carries away salt and other added chemicals.
This is theater.
Yeah I thought it was frowned upon what the locals in places like the Philippines do to catch fish – empty gallons of stuff into the sea over coral reefs.
Maybe the WHOI should run this experiment at say, the Great Barrier Reef?
I thought they used dynamite? Seen the effects of that on coral reefs in the Indian Ocean, did not look healthy.
What Charles said.
The ocean is not the property of WHOI. It is the property of all people, whose permission to do this should be required. My vote is no, do not even think about it.
Geoff S
I don’t recall voting for this, or voting for anyone or anything that had this in their campaign platform. Democracy dies in Woods Hole … bunch of Holes!
Remember, it’s in Wokeachusetts!
I’m mostly clueless about such stuff, but I think this in within the US Economic Zone. It’ll be undetectable quickly enough.
Over on the other side of Cape Cod, https://www.mwra.com/harbor/html/npdes.htm says:
That’s nearly 2 million tonnes of treated sewage per day. Why do you think people shouldn’t even think about this 20 tonnes?
“Why do you think people shouldn’t even think about this 20 tonnes?”
Because at the time of application there will be organisms at risk in the path of the boat, all for naught once the NaOH reacts with with the bi-carbonate and disperses.
One of my future efforts is to investigate the effect of human sewage in such vast quantities on the pH of the ocean. Not started, but it has a level of suspicion and curiosity I cannot ignore.
“Why do you think people shouldn’t even think about this 20 tonnes?”
Because after the 20 tonnes and a favourable report in the results, the do-gooders will up the ante to 20 thousand/million tonnes in order to save the World
All for our own good, of course
They should have gone to the ocean discharge from an alumina refinery. These dump large volumes of dilute sodium hydroxide into the ocean, (often under their jetty/pier). Just study what is already happening and avoid the expense.
https://www.google.com/maps/@-23.7905889,151.1788928,495m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu
I know it’s there, I was there when it was installed and commissioned.
I just provided a comment to the EPA in New England to make sure that they are aware of this experiment. I would encourage others who might have questions or concerns about this to do so as well.
https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/forms/contacting-epa-new-england#CommentsReport
I thought that they had decided that CO2 wasn’t the problem, but it was cow farts.
How does this help then?
If it’s cow farts, I suggest a device should be installed on every cow to collect those climate destroying gases!
Should be easy to rig up an ignition source to burn ’em :<)
“Lye, or sodium hydroxide, is a strong base that can cause severe chemical burns”
Ridiculous scare stuff. A concentrated solution of NaOH can do that. But 20 tons is a drop in the ocean. And sea water is a buffer; that NaOH would immediately react with HCO₃⁻ to produce carbonate, already prevalent in the sea.
Of course there are unknowns; that is why we do experiments. I don’t know if this experiment will do any good, but it won’t do any harm.
Unless you’re marine life!
Ok Nick, When are you taking your NaOH bath..?
Gees you leftists HATE ocean and avian life, don’t you !!
“And sea water is a buffer”
Yes, which is why enhanced atmospheric CO2 does not cause a pH change.
You just destroyed their “hole” argument… well done.
You are immeasurably idiotic.
Stokes is plumbing a new depth of cognitive dissonance … whilst the NaOH will dissipate in time, the effect in the immediate area of the concentration WILL KILL many marine life that it comes into contact with.
NaOH does not dissipate; it reacts immediately with bicarb. They put the 20 tones in over a period of hours.
Nothing reacts immediately. It’s a matter of kinetics. A fraction of the 50% solution will sink as it is more dense than sea water.
This solution denatures proteins and dissolves fat via saponification. People who get a splash of this solution in their eyes are often blinded for the remainder of their lives. This is a stupid experiment not well thought out at all.
Who would have thought that Stokes would have have supported this experiment? /s
Ionic acid/base reactions are fast. Think titration.
Sinking makes no difference. Bicarb is everywhere.
I think they could make their lives easier by using sodium carbonate.
Very ignorant about this you are.
Reactions take time. Dissolution takes time. There’s more in the ocean than bicarbonate.
That’s why titration reagents are relatively dilute. You don’t do titrations with 50% solutions of NaOH. The speed of diffusion limits the reaction time. And the total alkalinity of seawater is 100 to 130 mg per L as CaCO3, so it takes time for the bicarbonate portion to diffuse since that is relatively small compared to a 50% concentration.
I have done thousands of acid/base titrations. Some require a stirring bar to prevent the effect of these issues.
Exactly.
A ship’s propellor is a pretty effective stirring bar.
I’m pretty sure that if I took my boat out to the project site, and ran around in circles with a medium wake, they would throw a big ol’ fit and call the coast guard in an attempt to forcibly move my boat from the site.
Sure, let’s just add trillions of tons to the ocean. Makes perfect sense.
“They put the 20 tones in over a period of hours.”
Deliberate TOXIC POLLUTION. !
Extremely exothermic, extremely effects pH. Extremely negatively effects all life in the immediate region. You people are INSANE.
So the reaction will increase the local water temperature releasing more disolved CO2 into the atmosphere? Excellent logic going on here.
Didn’t our old friend Svante come up with the Arrhenius equation which is a formula for the temperature dependence of reaction rates.
How many hours? From the drone picture, even at 1kt, that dispersal, as shown, would take about an hour. what was the pump out rate? You don’t know, without that information and knowing the speed of the vessel you have no idea of the rate of dissipation.
You have no idea of the rate of dissipation
…and neither do you, and that’s a problem.
As usual none of us does, but opinions are loud. WHOI does know that.
Absolutely.
Go ahead and pop a few lye pellets into your mouth or stick your hand in liquid Drano. Whatever you were thinking about before will cease as your mind focuses on the burning pain of saponification. Without a doubt, this experiment will kill sea creatures.
It will be localized of course, but stupid nevertheless.
I tend to agree with Nick on this one. This experiment is puny compared with the millions of tons of stuff that has been put into the sea aboard sinking ships, especially military cargo ships. In fact, at least two nuclear submarines, whose reactors carry tons of highly enriched uranium and fission products, have been lost at sea. The Exxon Valdez oil spill was supposed to have destroyed the ecosystem of Prince William Sound for a century, but in just a few years, it was as if the disaster had never happened. Then again, there’s this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCxOyz_fdZw Ten tons of sodium metal dumped into Lenore Lake, Washington. The video asserts that there are no fish in the lake, so nothing was harmed. That’s false. Lenore Lake is home to the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout, the only fish that can survive in the high pH of the already alkaline lake. They’re a favorite of trout fishermen. Honestly, this kind of story is just like climate alarmism, which asserts that tiny causes have gigantic effects. The world doesn’t work that way.
The difference is that accidents happen. They are not planned.
Sorry, Michael, but your counter examples do not apply to the situation being discussed. Reactor fuel is sealed in a thick metal pressure vessel. Oil and sodium metal are not equivalent to NaOH.
Even if the experiment is harmless- it costs $$$. So it’s a stupid waste of $$$. There are better things to be researching. Woods Hole also believes no trees should be cut- no forests managed for wood products- all so the trees will do nothing but sequester carbon to save the planet. And let’s not forget where it is- it’s in Wokeachusetts- the most woke place on the planet- more so than CA, in my opinion.
tiny causes have gigantic effects
There may only be “tiny” effects on the global scale, but what about the local impacts? They don’t matter?
Just because millions of people die each year, it is still not okay to kill them.
Unless it is diluted before being dumped, organisms will be at risk that are in the path of the boat. If they were using calcium hydroxide, the experiment would yield calcium carbonate as a precipitate and remove some of the bicarbonate. However, because all sodium compounds are soluble, there will be no precipitate formed. They will just be messing with the carbonate/bicarbonate equilibration point (the pH), without sequestering any of the carbonate. I agree with Charles that this experiment is not well thought out and is insensitive to the unnecessary disruption of the local ecosystem.
I imagine they pump it at a modest rate into the turbulent wake of the boat.
Calcium hydroxide would have been OK too, and maybe less amenable to a scare. But it makes no diference to the solution, which is of independent ions. There is a lot of Ca⁺⁺ already there, so if the pH is high enough the CaCO₃ will precipitate, regardless of the cation that was introduced.
A totally pointless exercise.
As you pointed out.. the oceans are highly buffered.
Will make absolutely no difference to atmospheric CO2 or mythical oceans acidification.
But Nick luvs pointless climate exercises, don’t you Nick.
That’s a stupid comment. Calcium hydroxide is made from calcium carbonate, thus more CO2 is liberated in its production than could be absorbed by it.
I agree, as I’ve said elsewhere, that there is no future in using man-made alkalis to combat CO2. But this is just an experiment on dispersion, not a venture to save the world. I don’t know why they think that knowledge is needed, butI suppose they have made a case to somebody.
You could make a small amount of progress by calcining and sequestering the CO2.
If there is not enough CO2 in the air photosynthesis stops for 90 percent of the land plants die and the land animals die with them.
In the last glacial period when the oceans cooled and sucked the CO2 out of the atmosphere the CO2 level dropped to only 32 ppm above the extinction level.
The next glacial period may start at any time and there better be enough CO2 in the air or we are all doomed..
that is why we do experiments
I keep hearing how “we only have one planet” so we shouldn’t “experiment” on it with higher CO2, so wouldn’t the same apply?
it won’t do any harm
You know this with 100% certainty?
C’mon Nick,
You can’t know it won’t do any harm unless there is an environmental assessment, and 3 years of public input.
Keep in mind that the time/effort/money that goes into the environmental assessment needs to be greater than 20% of the time/effort/money of the actual project. And to be sure that the environmental assessment will be reviewed in a non-biased manner, the environmental assessment needs to be paid for in part (at least 20%) with a government grant; to qualify for the grant you need to have tacit political approval & behind the scenes administrative approval (eg. how to ignore ESA concerns….) before you even start.
I haven’t seen the environmental assessment, or public comment on the project (have you?). So we can’t know what harm there may be.
Dumping toxic chemicals in the oceans is punishable by international law, isn’t it !
I believe it is legal if you do it in concert with the Japanese whaling fleet …?
Since they want it at the surface, they’ll be using a NaOH solution. I didn’t look to see what pH that will be, can you check that out?
I don’t know bicarbonate chemistry well, but I agree with Nick. It should, no, will react quickly.
But not instantaneously. And ocean water is not devoid of life.
“ensuring a healthier and more stable environment for future generations.”
One good way to do that is gradually increasing the atmospheric CO2 concentration…
… by say, 2 or 3 of ppm per year.
WHOI has a FAQ here
So TOTALLY BOGUS from the very start. !
Oceans have not “acidified”
If anything the planet needs MORE atmospheric CO2.
The whole idea is based on LIES, anti-science, and propaganda BS. !!
The whole idea is based on LIES, anti-science, and propaganda BS. !!
_________________________________________________________
The Big Lie is a lie so colossal that nobody
would believe that someone could have the
impudence to distort the truth so infamously.
“The Climate Crisis” fits that definition perfectly.
From your link: “The ocean’s pH (level of acidity/alkalinity) governs its ability to take up the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.”
No. The ability to take up CO2 is a function of the solubility of CO2 at the surface temperature of the water, for a given partial pressure. The pH determines the ratio of carbonate to bicarbonate. It looks like we have someone conducting an experiment that he doesn’t even understand.
The link is right. Free CO2 in solution is related to ppm in air, by Henry’s Law. But the concentration of free CO2 is determined by pH. An alkaline sea reacts with CO2, removing free CO2 and allowing more to be taken up.
I regard it as a pretty trivial experiment with very short term very local effects. Essentially harmless. Unless you are a sea dweller precisely where and when they dump it.
But it speaks to the bigger truth that their understanding of marine chemistry is still so poor that they need to do it at all. They can, allegedly, model what the world ocean will do with CO2 for centuries in the future but can’t model some small, local, short-term pH changes and surface gas exchange maybe with a little bit of biology thrown in.
Just like people who can’t tell you the weather next month also claiming they know what the climate will be like in the next century.
It would be nice to know the lab tests and results they found there that justifies this more expensive experiment. More simply, Why do they think this is worth doing?”
On the scale of things, 20 tons of lye is a tiny drop in the bucket of ocean water. The hubris of them to think that this would make a difference is astounding. There simply isn’t enough lye to absorb a meaningful amount of CO2 from the atmosphere even if this was important, which it isn’t.
I wonder how much CO2 is released from making lye. I have no idea, but TANSTAAFL; I would be surprised if production releases less CO2 than it absorbs, and I know t uses energy which also releases CO2.
They’re probably thinking that if it succeeds in some way- they’ll scale it up to trillions of tons. No problemo! 🙂
“We will track the addition of 20 tonnes of NaOH for ~5 days, resulting in the potential sequestration of up to 20 tonnes of CO2”
Umm, I suspect they will have trouble scaling this up to sequester all of China’s emissions.
Other notes in Email to my sister:
20 tonnes for 20 tonnes. It seems to me this new process, if successful, will run into problems
when they scale it up to capture all of China’s CO2 emissions.
I wonder how much CO2 is released making NaOH. How do you make it, anyway? I’d start with electrolyzing salt water. “Woods Hole’s website stresses that because of the purity of sodium hydroxide…” suggests they don’t simply use seawater. 🙂
BTW, FWIW: I risked a visit to https://theodoregray.com/PeriodicTable/ for the atomic weight of
Na, 23. So NaOH is 40 and CO2 is 44. Close enough.
Yes, I think trying to counter man-made CO2 with man-made alkali is a hopeless task. The only way that could make sense is natural basic volcanic rocks like olivine.
There is absolutely ZERO necessity to “counter” human released CO2.
The oceans are already surrounded by natural basaltic rocks, and limestones.
Do you suggest we use fossil fuels to dig them up from the ocean floor and coastlines, just to dump them back in the sea. How DUMB would that be. !
Are you suggesting that there would be no unintended consequences from large-scale application of mafic rock powder?
No
Olivine is a mineral. The equivalent monomineralic rock is called dunite, which is considered an ultramafic rock, not “basic.” Basalt is a common mafic rock that usually contains a minor amount of olivine.
See my answer, but basically making the NaOH will generate 20 tonnes of CO2. Pretty funny really. Headline “WHOI makes net positive contribution to CO2 ppm”
Yes, good enough for government work.
Certainly don’t need the ocean for such an experiment. Two small fish tanks, both with sea water and one with lye should do just fine.
They can just as easily consult the many books on marine aquaria water chemistry.
That would sure save ’em (and us taxpayers) a bunch of money :<)
Get ready for more unintended consequences.
It’s important to understand the real reason for the frantic push to do geoengineering experiments. It is not out of concern for saving the planet. The totalitarians are deeply worried there might not be any global climate crisis comi g.
Consensus ‘scientists’ have been wrong at every turn. Wildfires, floods, droughts, tornadoes have been declining. There is no trend in hurricanes. They had to suffer an 18yr Dreaded Pause in temperature increments and a 25 yr forecast of anomalous warming proved to be 300% too high compared to 2 independent measurements (the forecast was an average of 30 some models which means the models actually ranged up to 600% too high!)
Meanwhile, the cost of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere turns out to be hugely net positive with Global Greening of the planet and doubling and redoubling of bumper crops needing only ⅔ of the land area formerly used. Habitat has expanded greatly and iconic animals like the Bengal tiger, in decline for a century despite conservation efforts, suddenly they began to recover as greening intensified. Indian tiger pop increased 38% between 2005 and 2015.when last reported on.Tigers in the Ganges delta increased 10% with mo conservation efforts reported,
Are Quint and the ‘Orca’ available for the work? Come to think of it, this ‘experiment’ could provide an excellent plot line for another ‘Jaws’ sequel:
Synopsis: A giant shark becomes enraged when climate scientists in search of funding poison its food supply. Terror ensues as the hungry beast subsequently prowls the waters around Martha’s Vineyard, preying on its clueless and virtue signaling inhabitants during the high season…
devouring Woods Hole researchers!
Yes, but the whole Richard Dreyfus over the side in a shark cage thing has already been done. I’ll work with the staff writers to see what we can come up with.
According to wiki the chloralkali process needs “2,500 kWh (9,000 MJ) of electricity per tonne of sodium hydroxide produced”
CO2 intensity of USA grid is about 0.4 kg CO2 per kWh. So making 20 tonnes of NaOH creates 20 tonnes of CO2. Perhaps the crazy kids at WHOI need to take that into account.
one thousand pounds of “spilt” or unintended release of NaOh is a reportable quantity to the EPA but these absolute cockwombles want to dump 20 metric tonnes into the ocean? It defies belief.
Fe fertilization is a real option the ratio of biomass build is 75,000 to 1.
It has been done the outcome from early tests we very good it was the Left who fought it because a solution is not wanted.
Ultimately sequestering biomass in the ocean to build organic rich shale’s is the only legitimate way to lock the CO2 up.
My god 1 for 1 is stupid.
Most organisms, but particularly small ones like plankton, have a relatively narrow range of tolerance for pH change. That means a shift from their evolutionary optimum, down or up. Someone, like the Sierra Club, or Save the Whales, should also monitor the experiment to watch for dead fish or plankton.
Which, overall, will be minimal once the sodium hydroxide is thoroughly mixed. Apparently, they are unfamiliar with the chemical buffering in sea water. Meanwhile, where the alkali is dumped, it may overpower the buffers and result in the water temporarily being toxic until equilibrium is re-established. The situation is not unlike having one’s lawn fertilizer applicator set improperly and waking up the next morning to discover streaks of dead grass where the fertilizer was too concentrated. The reason that animals and plants aren’t dying from CO2 is that the CO2 is ‘applied’ equally to every square centimeter of the surface of the ocean and the buffering prevents any large downward excursions of pH. However, the buffering can be driven so hard that it ceases to function normally. That is probably what will happen locally.
There are several variants of the aphorism, “The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.” I’m just incredulous that such an experiment is associated with Woods Hole. It sounds like something cooked up by a high school science teacher with a recent BA in Environmental Studies.
Wouldn’t they need an environmental impact report, with public comment and all of that stuff?
No, they are climate activists/alarmists. !
Harming nature, polluting the environment…. just doesn’t matter. !
The purity of NaOH?
It’s a bit like drinking bleach to protect yourself from Covid …
There will be unintended consequences
“drinking bleach to protect yourself from Covid”
Which only Joe Biden said. !!
The pH of the oceans will now increase from 8.000000 to. 8.0000001.
more like 8.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001
It seems they did not look at net carbon. Industrial lye production requires a lot of electricity (they are not leaching rainwater through wood ash at scale) to produce a concentrated solution, and then further heat source if they are drying to crystals/powder.
I did not do a proper review but to get a rough start on understanding the lifecycle of this effort I searched google for “how is lye produced greenhouse gas”, the first result was irrelevant, the second result was this paper:
https://ajbasweb.com/old/ajbas/2013/February/421-431.pdf
The abstract suggests that producing one kilo of lye by commercial process requires 0.6329kg CO2 equivalent in inputs. Other sources list it at 1.12kg CO2 equivalent in inputs, but even if we grant the lower value once we add in the rest of the CO2 required to truck the lye to port, load on the ship, fuel the ship to distribute the lye, and imperfect reactions in seawater and I would be surprised if this experiment is even a net sequestration.
Even if there was a way to get a net sequestration effect (i.e. ‘green’ sources of electricity, electric boats, etc.) could we ever make enough lye to matter?
A quick search for global lye production yielded estimates of about 80 million tonnes / year. Statista lists worldwide anthropogenic emissions of CO2 equivalents as approaching 40 billion tonnes / year (and growing). So if we a assume a 1:1 sequestration as they do in this experiment, offsetting 10% of global CO2 emissions would require a 50-fold increase in lye production (please correct me if my math is off).
You have it right. Even for his ignorance. Nick sees this scheme’s folly.
Yes.
Are they mad ? Who is measuring the 20 tonnes and how? Do they envisage a huge multi ocean expansion of this idea? I was much impressed with Woods Hole when I visited as an overseas Brit . What a poisonous disaster is ‘global warming’. Oh sorry sorry – ‘climate change’
WH has signed on to a document – signed by most of the enviros and greens in New England to lock up the forests to do nothing but sequester carbon.
As they continue to clear cut forests to make way for bird choppers.
Since the word “climate” has been redefined to be only 30 years worth of weather, it like the weather, is always changing anyway.
“The underlying hypothesis is that the addition of lye will increase the ocean’s alkalinity, enhancing its ability to absorb CO₂ from the atmosphere.”
Utterly insane. Not the only crazy idea from Woods Hole. They also believe all forests should be locked up to sequester carbon and nothing else. No more cutting trees for wood products.
I hope that locals, such as yourself, can point out this insanity and get it stopped.
I’ve been fighting forestry haters and bad forestry enterprises for 50 years. I’ve argued against Woods Hole signing on to the idea of terminating all tree cutting. I do it mostly by sending emails to all the key players- state enviro officials, enviro groups, pro forestry groups, etc. I’m generally ignored. I back up what I say with many references. Still ignored. Wokeachusetts is so mind warped- there is little resistance to insane woke policies here. The state government’s house of reps is something like 95% Dem. The state Senate is almost as bad. The few Republicans in this state are useless. Go along to get along and enjoy their lazy job as a politician.
One can provide a comment to the EPA in New England about this.
https://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/forms/contacting-epa-new-england#CommentsReport
In a recent poll two-thirds of the Republicans under 30 support the “climate agenda”. It’s mass insanity everywhere in the Western countries.
I don’t believe those polls- but if it’s true, it’s because their elders aren’t enlightening them.
I don’t have time to check, but I suspect that the forest thing is from the Woods Hole Institute, a completely separate and completely wacko org. Please check to verify which one you are railing about.
https://www.woodsholeinstitute.org/
From their “about” page:
Turns out it’s the Woods Hole Research Center.
too many organizations using “Woods Hole” in their name!
https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/woods-hole-research-center/