Pee in the ocean next time you go in

[Cainkane1]

EVERYONE GO TAKE A WHIZ IN THE OCEAN

No, I'm not trying to be nasty here. It just might save the planet! It seems that some climate researchers are investigating the idea of dumping huge quantities of urea into the oceans on the theory that this will cause these oceans to scrub, if you will, massive quantities of carbon dioxide from the air. Urea, you see, is a substance that naturally occurs in urine. The idea is that the urea promotes the growth of plankton. Plankton will create an algae bloom. The algae bloom will absorb CO2 from the atmosphere. Fish will eat the plankton and die .. and then will sink to the bottom of the ocean taking all of that CO2 with them. But I see a problem here. With all of those dead fish filling up the oceans, won't that cause the ocean levels to rise?

 

[four elevener]

I don't think there's anyone alive who doesn't pee in the ocean when they go in....right?

 

[Zep]

That's called "swimming" with a silent "p".

 

[Michael Redman]

Last week, rather that eating turkey with a bunch of people I can't stand, I flew 4800 miles round trip just to pee in the ocean. So, I'm doing my part to fight global warming.

 

[DRBUZZ0]

Um... Well we need to make sure enough people pee or otherwise it will be diluted to homeopathic levels and you know... that'll do the opposite


(that was a joke.. I'm not really that stupid)

 

[fuelair]

But fish pee too, sort of.

 

[Dogdoctor]

There is another way perhaps. If you remove CO2 from various sources, the CO2 can be sent via pipeline to the deep ocean and the temperature and depth will result in solid CO2 forming and accumulating on the bottom of the ocean (I think). In the case of fish, if they die in shallow water they will likely release CO2 as they decompose negating any gain or making more CO2 than they would have consumed.

 

[Slimething]

But fish pee too, sort of.

Yeah, but fish pee ammonia, not urea. Urea was an evolutionary adaptation by terrestrial animals who store their pee internally and ammonia is far too toxic for that. Urea essentially binds two ammonia molecules to a carbon atom with the result being a molecule of very much lower toxicity.

So, killing all those fish is just icing on the cake! How dare they pollute our oceans?!

 

[BenBurch]

We are much better off fixing carbon with algae and then drying it in the sun and packing it into bales in the bottom of a mine.

You can use sewage water for this with minimal treatment, and there is a lot of the southwest where there is nothing BUT sunlight.

 

[mhaze]

We are much better off fixing carbon with algae and then drying it in the sun and packing it into bales in the bottom of a mine.

You mean like, all those holes in the ground we've made to dig things out, we outghta start putting staff back in 'em? Reverse it all? Synthesize petro and pump it down?

 

[BenBurch]

You mean like, all those holes in the ground we've made to dig things out, we outghta start putting staff back in 'em? Reverse it all? Synthesize petro and pump it down?

Well, no, I would put baled algae mats down there. Nothing as expensive as trying to synthesize anything, but yes, the carbon was underground when we found it, and that would not be a bad place to put it away for safekeeping.

 

[Taffer]

Well, no, I would put baled algae mats down there. Nothing as expensive as trying to synthesize anything, but yes, the carbon was underground when we found it, and that would not be a bad place to put it away for safekeeping.

I actually like this idea. Eventually, it would turn back into oil.

 

[Prometheus]

Well, no, I would put baled algae mats down there. Nothing as expensive as trying to synthesize anything, but yes, the carbon was underground when we found it, and that would not be a bad place to put it away for safekeeping.

How much energy would it take to:
1) transport the wastewater to wherever the algae mats are being grown
2) harvest and bale the algae
3) transport the bales to the mines, bury them
?

Would the amount of energy required be comparable to the amount of energy we got by digging the carbon up and burning it in the first place? That is, do we have to put back all the fossil fuel energy we've used thus far?

How much land area per ton of carbon re-sequestered would be needed to grow and dry the algae?

How much difference would all this make in the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere? How quickly? It took millions of years for the plants and animals that eventually became oil to grow and die and be buried? Can we really mimic that process fast enough to make a difference?

 

[Dancing David]

Although certain interests don't want people to know about it, the ethanol cycle (IE using plants to generate feul) still binds more carbon than it releases, because of the carbon bonding of the soil ecosystems.

But the idea of sequestering carbon in bales of algea, that is a good one. Plankton blooms will also bind a certain amount of carbon that will sink to the ocean floor is exoskeltons.

 

[TX50]

I have been told that many SCUBA divers here who wear wetsuits or semi-
dry suits piss in them as a quick way of warming them up. I think it's a
disgusting practice (but I use a drysuit and look down on wetsuited divers
as a matter of principle anyway )

 

[NobbyNobbs]

I have been told that many SCUBA divers here who wear wetsuits or semi-
dry suits piss in them as a quick way of warming them up. I think it's a
disgusting practice (but I use a drysuit and look down on wetsuited divers
as a matter of principle anyway )

Why so disgusting? I'm told pee is relatively sanitary.

 

[BenBurch]

How much...

Don't have answers; Needs to be studied.

Wastewater doesn't necessarily cost much to transport. If you built near a major city like LV I'm betting they would love somebody to use their waste water.

I don't think the number of acres of currently useless land covered by this matters all that much.

Baling and transport of course put carbon into the air but a railroad train can move tons and tons cheaply; 400 ton-miles per gallon of fuel is the usual number.

So I am *guessing* that the process would be about 80% efficient in terms of carbon removed.

As for how fast, that entirely depends on the scale of the operation. If you move a train with 100 cars at 300,000 pounds each (load limits on class-1 roads vary from about 250K# to 320K#), then you are sequestering 12,000 tons of carbon at 80% efficiency.

 

[BenBurch]

Oh, and if deep shaft mines are an issue, Landfill is another possibility. Layers of bales and layers of clay, repeat until the hill is too high to deal with and then start another. You could fill on some of those big ugly open pit mines this way.

 

[BenBurch]

Why so disgusting? I'm told pee is relatively sanitary.

If your pee is not cloudy, it is likely sanitary.

 

[TX50]

Why so disgusting? I'm told pee is relatively sanitary.

True, but for me it has little to do with how "sanitary" deliberate incontinence
is. Pissing ones pants is still unsavoury, and unnecessary anyway since the
water trapped in a suit warms up quickly enough.