Volume 104

Number 1

Spring 2018

Journal of the

KM oNCw

/ $

‘ U

WASHINGTON LIBRARY

JUL 16 2018

HARVARD

UNIVERSITY

ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

BRON a He MCIIMIVACTAES 5:1 TOW QI Goo. ceecdentcsccsactrsessesssvenssevesstvcnsadeascdensisassesossacensisccdueveuatsosnssoniunciaisisebiaceance ii

Pee Re ISNT Ea EER RNS TP CARE ENS 8 ae codecs ay 01s coves cece caves cbbyvdonsaybosssbion canssdbenvrdevsbadeberedvensbeens iil

A Global Facility for Reduction of Atmospheric CO2 B. Dragoljuba et Al ......ceccsceeccseesses 1

UME SMMESNNICH OU PNOMNGND-1. AT VCSOM o.-s030ecssscnyasecery.coatscsseosovsesisereaviocsseecsssansoiatecaustodsoestaetacdovieanens 29

El Baht: A Prospective Impact Crater A. Paris et Gl. ...............sesscsscessossesscessssnscascesesnesaseeneeess 39

Evapotranspiration of Smooth Brome K. Anderson and K. GilCreQSe ......cscssessssecstessseeesnee 47

Ret eas MRE CARMEN CREM oer nego eae scr aoc deta Fengnnvind chasvast uous ciate vsvnossedco psbsunscespiioaicsois 53

OTE RESIS YA SORE FY RT RS ay or oe Osco ee oe 54

CoE DEG VESTS Te ts 0) ea ec Po 55

PUPPIES OCICTIOS AMG DCIEG ALES ooo). sccaisacsccsoocscnsscseiagsaseosseoncantecassoecoseecsssansourescesvorsoseesseneronseas

ISSN 0043-0439 Issued Quarterly at Washington DC

Washington Academy of Sciences

Founded in 1898

BOARD OF MANAGERS

Elected Officers

President

Mina Izadjoo

President Elect

Judy Staveley

Treasurer

Ronald Hietala

Secretary

Tiziana Cavinato

Vice President, Administration

Terry Longstreth

Vice President, Membership

Ram Sriram

Vice President, Junior Academy

Paul Arveson

Vice President, Affiliated Societies

Gene Williams

Members at Large

Michael Cohen

Frank Haig, S.J.

Mahesh Mani

Kathe C. Brady

Elizabeth Doyle

Past President

Sue Cross

AFFILIATED SOCIETY DELEGATES

Shown on back cover

Editor of the Journal

Sethanne Howard

Journal of the Washington Academy of

Sciences (ISSN 0043-0439)

Published by the Washington Academy of

Sciences

email: wasjournal@washacadsci.org

website: www.washacadsci.org

The Journal of the Washington Academy

of Sciences

The Journal is the official organ of the

Academy. It publishes articles on science

policy, the history of science, critical reviews,

original science research, proceedings of

scholarly meetings of its Affiliated Societies,

and other items of interest to its members. It

is published quarterly. The last issue of the

year contains a directory of the current

membership of the Academy.

Subscription Rates

Members, fellows, and life members in good

standing receive the Journal free of charge.

Subscriptions are available on a calendar year

basis, payable in advance. Payment must be

made in US currency at the following rates.

US and Canada $30.00

Other Countries $35.00

Single Copies (when available) $15.00

Claims for Missing Issues

Claims must be received within 65 days of

mailing. Claims will not be allowed if non-

delivery was the result of failure to notify the

Academy of a change of address.

Notification of Change of Address

Address changes should be sent promptly to

the Academy Office. Notification should

contain both old and new addresses and zip

codes.

POSTMASTER:

Send address changes to WAS, Rm GL117,

1200 New York Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20005

Academy Office

Washington Academy of Sciences

Room GL117

1200 New York Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20005

Phone: (202) 326-8975

Volume 104

Number 1

Spring 2018

Journal of the

WASHINGTON

ACADEMY OF SCIENCES

Editor's Comments S. Howard

LISELI Wo’ al DICT 9117 Col Se [Ce Pane te Sen DS ae nner ened IL Le eee ee iil

A Global Facility for Reduction of Atmospheric CO2 B. Dragoljuba et Al. ..c.ccecceccecsseseee 1

pneskipping (Pot Problembhl’ 247 Ves Orcas 05k peccscttss vac Moh cacs kernel 29

EI Baht: A Prospective Impact Crater A. POris:€f Gc. cisessscticssie sc cercciatscdensndsnscnsesssbrowveetevensess 39

Evapotranspiration of Smooth Brome K. Anderson and K. GlCrOASC wo... .eseecsessesseesteestennes 47

PU PELI NEN SEED, PUD obec ETON a aatrisro crt ot Nee fescc atv antovteceve. Ben cateve vaso vse eeeeaesueaA tniusstintseto rat ear aorcesatins 53]

PS EN UISEN OAAO: PRUUEIN ONS csgencte eas hiecics cde Pave ip ated diniecs eee een ann ot antic Donte ease 54

Pe TUT ER UES CH LENS CRECNERCRING case acgrccn ne fees tes crs ae ac aresh tens wean Ene eee Te eRe ice 55

I idie idee Beta Coie ye EE: 1 CON at a ee ee ee

ISSN 0043-0439 Issued Quarterly at Washington DC

Spring 2018

EDITOR’S COMMENTS

Presenting the 2018 Spring issue of the Journal of the Washington Academy

of Sciences. We emphasize that the Academy is committed to the value of

privacy. When you become a member of WAS, we collect personal

information, including whether you wish to receive the Journal and the

email newsletter. You are free to withdraw your consent to receive emails

at any time by clicking the “unsubscribe” link found at the bottom of the

email or by changing your preferences in your member account by

contacting admin@washacadsci.org. Our printed Membership Directory is

included in the Winter issue of the Journal and lists members who have not

opted out of appearing on the list. The Academy does not otherwise share

your personal information. We use the information as part of our services

to you including administrative purposes. Printed information 1s retained

indefinitely. We comply with the EU-US Privacy Shield Framework as set

forth by the US Department of Commerce regarding the collection, use, and

retention of personal information transferred from the European Union to

the United States.

For this issue we have four different papers.

We start with a possible method for reducing COz2 in the atmosphere.

To follow is a paper on the tipping pot problem. Then a discussion of a

possible impact crater in Egypt. We end with a study of the

evapotranspiration of smooth brome.

Letters to the editor are encouraged. Please send email

(wasjournal@washacadsci.org) comments on papers, suggestions for

articles, and ideas for what you would like to see in the Journal. We are a

peer reviewed journal and need volunteer reviewers. If you would like to be

on our reviewer list please send email to the above address and include your

specialty.

Sethanne Howard

Washington Academy of Sciences

Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences

Editor Sethanne Howard showard@washacadscl.org

Board of Discipline Editors

The Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences has an 11-member

Board of Discipline Editors representing many scientific and technical

fields. The members of the Board of Discipline Editors are affiliated with a

variety of scientific institutions in the Washington area and beyond —

government agencies such as the National Institute of Standards and

Technology (NIST); universities such as Georgetown; and professional

associations such as the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers

(IEEE).

Anthropology Emanuela Appetiti eappetiti@hotmail.com

Astronomy Sethanne Howard sethanneh@msn.com

Biology/Biophysics Eugenie Mielczarek mielczar@physics.gmu.edu

Botany Mark Holland maholland@salisbury.edu

Chemistry Deana Jaber djaber@marymount.edu

Environmental Natural

Sciences Terrell Erickson terrell.erickson] @wdc.nsda.gov

Health Robin Stombler rstombler@auburnstrat.com

History of Medicine Alain Touwaide atouwaide@hotmail.com

Operations Research Michael Katehakis mnk(@rci.rutgers.edu

Science Education Jim Egenrieder jim@deepwater.org

Systems Science Elizabeth Corona elizabethcorona@gmail.com

Spring 2018

Washington Academy of Sciences

A Global Facility for Reduction of Atmospheric

Carbon Dioxide

Bilanovic Dragoljuba*, Holland Mark», Kirzhner Felixc, Armon Roberte

aCEEESS, Sattgast 215, Bemidji State University,

bDepartment of Biological Sciences, Salisbury University,

cFaculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering Technion - Israel Institute of

Technology,

This work is in memory of our colleague Felix Kirzhner

Abstract

If applied alone, reducing anthropogenic CO 2 emissions cannot mitigate a global

temperature rise above 2.0°C. A reduction in atmospheric CO> concentration is needed to

avert further climate change-mediated degradation of the planetary life support system.

The only mechanism we have for CO2 sequestration from the atmosphere and other dilute

sources is photosynthesis, but current levels of photosynthetic output cannot keep up.

We began with “back of the envelope” calculations to determine the size of the task of

removing atmospheric CO2 to below pre-industrial levels. We then brainstormed what the

global community could do to effect an increase in photosynthetic capacity sufficient to

effect this reduction. The solution presented here will seem far-fetched to some but

illustrates challenges and the magnitude of the problem facing the planet.

We describe a Global Facility for Reduction of Atmospheric CO> to 350 ppm. We suggest

that the project would require construction of a network of 160 million onshore and off-

shore microalgae bioreactors for the sequestration of atmospheric carbon. At full capacity,

such a facility would reduce atmospheric CO2 by 2 ppm yr! and employ more than 200

million people. To avoid any competition with agriculture for both water and land, only

brackish and marine microalgae could be cultivated. Offshore bioreactors would float on

the ocean surface during daylight hours when growing microalgae, but would be

submerged during the night, disposing a portion of their biomass below the euphotic zone

and taking in nutrient rich water for the next growing cycle. Microalgal biomass will be

stored as is in deep water, at the ocean floor. Biomass produced in onshore facilities will

be stored in deep geological formations.

Spring 2018

Introduction

CLIMATE CHANGE THREATENS with myriad challenges: lengthy droughts,

melting of glaciers and ice caps, rising sea levels, extreme weather, ocean

acidification, and habitat and biodiversity destruction. The annual costs of

documented climate change-inflicted damages are conservatively estimated

at 2.0% of the world GDP as long as atmospheric CO2 remains below 450

ppm. At levels greater than 450 ppm, those costs are expected to soar to at

least 5.0% of global GDP per annum and losses will keep rising (Stern,

2007). In 2014, 5% of the world GDP was about US$ 3.86*10!? (IMF, UN,

WB, CIA web pages accessed in April, 2016).

More than 80% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are due

to burning of carbon fuels (IPCC 2007, 2013). Carbon dioxide (COz), a

major greenhouse gas and a principal cause of climate change, accounts for

76% of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Burning carbon fuels

added 3.53*10'° tons of CO2 to the Earth’s atmosphere in 2013 (PBL,

2014); in 2025, CO2 emissions could be 4.9*10'° ton yr! and 6.1*10'° ton

CO2 yr! in 2050 (WRI 2005). From January 2014 to January 2015,

atmospheric COz increased by 3.86 ppm (1.e. from 400.30 to 404.16 ppm;

Scripps, 2016). Even if all carbon fuels currently used were replaced by

renewable energy sources, by 2025 human activity would still add 1.3*10!°

ton of CO2 per year into the atmosphere. As a consequence, atmospheric

CO2 will reach 475425 ppm within just 20 to 25 years. The Earth was

“nearly ice-free until the atmospheric concentration of CO2 fell to 450+100

ppm” (Hansen ef a/. 2008). Increases in atmospheric CO>2 intensify both the

scope and the magnitude of all climate change related challenges. Related

costs, including defense and other costs, are poised to rise rapidly, severely

impeding other socio-economic initiatives on a planetary scale throughout

the 21" century.

~ When atmospheric CO2 reaches 490475 ppm, the average global

temperature will be at least 1.875+40.375 °C higher than today (IPCC 2016).

World political leaders recently agreed to, “Holding the increase in the

global average temperature to well below 2.0 °C above pre-industrial levels

and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-

industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks

and impacts of climate change;” (Paris Agreement “Article 2” UN, 2015).

This is a laudable goal, however, at the same time there is a strong push to

Washington Academy of Sciences

implement the so called “adaptation strategy to climate change”. In essence,

the “adaptation strategy” is to let atmospheric CO2 concentrations increase

rampantly to 550 ppm or higher, thus preserving the “business as usual”

economy. Graedel and Allenby (2010) noted that, “Doubling the

concentration of atmospheric CO2 has emerged as a political target and a

focal point for scientific analysis in most climate change models". In 2010

atmospheric CO2 was 391 ppm (Scripps 2016). Doubling it will bring the

concentration to 782 ppm. Unfortunately the “adaptation strategy” appears

to be ingrained in the “Paris Agreement”. The agreement’s focus is on the

reduction of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions but what is really

being targeted here are the concentrated streams of carbon released by the

combustion of fossil fuels. Reducing these CO2 emissions alone is not

sufficient to prevent a temperature rise above the target because in addition

to these sources, dilute streams of carbon being produced by human activity,

by our domestic animals, by microbial activity, etc., contribute substantially

to COz2 in the atmosphere. It will be necessary to increase current levels of

carbon sequestration from the atmosphere in addition to curtailing carbon

emissions from concentrated carbon streams to achieve the magic 2°C. Yet

reduction of atmospheric COz 1s not mentioned even once in the Paris

Accord (UN 2015). So it seems there is neither a financial incentive nor a

political willingness to tackle the sequestration of CO2 directly from the

atmosphere. But reducing anthropogenic CO2 emissions will only slow

down the rate of increase of atmospheric COz. It will not eliminate further

increases, so it will not help us stay on the 1.5 °C target proclaimed by the

Paris Agreement (Bilanovic ef al., 2009, Kharecha ef a/., 2010, Helm 2012).

Rising atmospheric COz intensifies global warming which in turn

intensifies climate change. Global warming is currently viewed as

"irreversible on a multi-century to millennial time scale" with an

understanding that much of the CO2 emitted "will remain in the atmosphere

longer than 1,000 years" (IPCC 2013). These statements are incorrect!

First Principles

The mitigation of global increases in temperature have engendered

considerable debate and various methods to slow or halt the temperature

increase have been proposed. Among these are geoengineering methods

such as fertilization of the oceans with iron or other minerals and creating a

reflective sulfate aerosol haze in the atmosphere (Committee on

Spring 2018

Geoengineering Climate. 2015a, b). We deem these proposals to be on risky

ecological footing and subject to the law of unintended consequences. We

consider a large reduction of atmospheric COz2 the only feasible way to

prevent temperature increases beyond 1.5 °C. The 1.5 °C target is reachable

only if we embark on the reduction of atmospheric CO2 with a goal to bring

the concentration to <350 ppm within the next 50 to 60 years. To reduce

both the scope and magnitude of various climate change related challenges

and to minimize their intensification the following should be accomplished

within 10 to 25 years:

1) Replace carbon fuels with alternative sources of energy,

2) Integrate carbon capture and storage technologies into all existing

and yet to be built stationary sources of CO2, and

3) Establish a mechanism for reduction of atmospheric COz.

The goal of this work is to show that increasing the photosynthetic

capacity of the planet such that atmospheric CO2 1s reduced to 350+25 ppm

is technologically feasible, but the magnitude of the task is enormous. It

could easily take from 10 to 25 years to accomplish. A secondary goal is to

discuss some of the various technical, organizational, and operational

problems we think will emerge during this time and in so doing, elicit

interest in the project.

While current methods for carbon sequestration are effective when

operating on concentrated sources of CO2, we see the only viable process

for removal of CO2 from our “dilute” atmosphere is photosynthesis.

However, reduction of CO2 to a concentration of <350 ppm is beyond the

present capacity of our natural carbon sinks.

Natural carbon sinks (NCS) are grossly overloaded so they absorb

an ever lower percentage of anthropogenic COz2 (Fig. 1). At present the sinks

absorb about two thirds of carbon from anthropogenic sources (Fig. 1);

roughly 1/3 of emitted CO? stays in the atmosphere. Prior to the 20" century

NCS absorbed more than 90 percent of anthropogenic CO? emissions (Fig

1A). From 1900 to 2000 carbon absorption/removal efficiency of the natural

sinks decreased to 82% than sharply dropped to 65-67% in first 15 years of

21" century (Fig. 1A). What can be done?

Washington Academy of Sciences

Removal efficiency of the NCS could be brought back into 80-85%

range provided we reduce atmospheric CO2 to or below 350+25 ppm (Fig.

1B). Carbon removal efficiency (CRF) of NCS is estimated by:

CRF = 100 — (([CO2 +ACOz2] — [M*CO2])*100 / [CO2+ACOz2)),

where:

[CO2] = Estimated atmospheric CO2 (ppm) in the absence of NCS in year

a ae

ACO2 = Total CO2 emitted (ppm) in year “n” from burning of: biomass,

coal, crude oil and natural gas (Smil 2010; DOE/EIA-0384 2011).

[““CO2] = Reports from the literature or measured atmospheric CO? at

Mount Loa in year “n” (i.e. atmospheric CO2 concentration in

presence of NCS).

For example:

In the absence of NCS sinks the estimated atmospheric [CO2] should

be around 449.75 ppm in 2000; within a year time it should increase to

452.94 ppm COd2 (1.e. ACO2 = 3.19 ppm); in 2001 at Mount Loa, measured

CO2 was 372 ppm; so:

CFR of NCS = 100 — ((449.75 + 3.19) - 372))*100/452.94) = 82.13%

(see Fig.1).

Proposal to Establish a Global Facility for Reduction of Atmospheric

CO?

To make biofuels, to treat wastewater, as a source of chemicals and

for other purposes microalgae are currently cultivated in both open and

closed bioreactors. R&D seeks to integrate these processes and sequester

CO2 (Fig 2A). The literature reports R&D activities geared “to develop

techniques allowing the mass culture of selected microalgae species in large

open, unlined ponds, the low-cost harvesting of the algal biomass and the

achievement of high productivities, of at least 100 tons/hectare/year”

(Benemann et al 2001). An “International Network on Biofixation of CO2

and Greenhouse Gas Abatement with Microalgae” was proposed with a goal

to capture CO2 from concentrated sources (Pedroni ef a/ 2001, Benemann

et al 2001). The network would, undoubtedly, help reduce anthropogenic

Spring 2018

COz2 emissions but would not help reduce atmospheric CO2. The problem

with this approach to fuel production is the cost of production of microalgae

biomass which is five to ten times higher than the cost acceptable to the

energy industry. Our vision is for the creation of a global network of

microalgal bioreactors operating with the goal of capturing and sequestering

CO2 from the atmosphere.

CO, Removed by Natural Sinks (%)

re)

fe)

[e)

sa aa =

1900 1950 :

Atmospheric CO, (ppm)

Year

Fig. 1. Carbon Removal/Absorption Efficiency of Natural Carbon Sinks (NCS) in Time

(Fig. 1A) and at Different Atmospheric CO2 Concentration (Fig 1B). Adapted from:

NOAA 2015, Smil 2010, DOE/EIA 2011, BP 2015, Scripps 2016).

Microalgae R&D will bring technological advances in future but

because of the fast rising concentration of atmospheric CO2 we have no time

to wait for these advances to materialize. The rising concentration of

atmospheric COz outstrips the ability of natural carbon sinks to assimilate

it. If this trend continues (Fig. 1) it will dramatically change our planetary

life support system. Instead of waiting for R&D advances, the construction

of a global facility should start today using existing algal technology with

the understanding that technological advances will be incorporated as they

happen.

The proposed global facility has one objective only — to reduce

atmospheric CO? at any cost. All current biological, chemical and physical

processes being developed for carbon capture and storage are expensive to

operate when they capture and store carbon from concentrated CO2 sources.

Washington Academy of Sciences

The processes are prohibitively expensive for use in reduction of

atmospheric CO2. We show here that the proposed facility is

technologically feasible, safer and far less costly for reduction of

atmospheric CO2 than any of biological, chemical or physical processes

currently under development.

The proposed facility will be composed of a large number of

bioreactors for CO2 reduction. To lessen potential environmental impacts,

construction and O&M expenses brackish and/or marine microalgae native

to local environment will be grown in the bioreactors. Microalgae will be

grown in polyculture instead of the monoculture used in classic microalgae

processes. This will eliminate expenses of inoculum preparation and

expenses of single strain maintenance in open bioreactors. Composition of

the polyculture will change with seasons and affect biomass yield but will

have little, 1f any, effect on operation of the reactors since the “raison d’ etre”

for operation of the facilities is the reduction of atmospheric CO2 and

subsequent environmentally benign carbon storage rather than production

of specific materials from the algal biomass.

Practically all biomass generated in the bioreactors will be stored as

is at either ocean floor or in deep geological formations; this will eliminate

biomass harvesting costs which are often as high as 40% of biomass

production costs. As is storage of biomass will further simplify operation

and make some of the operations used in classic processes for microalgae

production redundant. This will further reduce construction and O&M costs

of the reactors. Comparison of classic microalgae production and the

facility proposed here is given in Tables | to 3 and Fig. 2.

To accommodate for cultural, educational, economic and other

differences among partnering economies, while creating desperately needed

jobs for growing population, both low-tech and high-tech bioreactors for

reduction of atmospheric CO2 should be deployed. Most of high-tech

reactors will be remote-controlled and positioned off-shore. Most of the

low-tech reactors will be “labor intensive” to provide as many jobs as

possible, and will be built on-shore in countries having ample supply of

non-arable land and climate suitable for cultivation of the microalgae; for

example, countries sharing and bordering the Sahara. Low tech bioreactors

will use “high rate algae pond” reactors with modifications discussed

below.

Spring 2018

Fig. 2A

Atmospheric CO,

Fig. 2B

Fig. 2. Classic production of microalgae biomass (Fig. 2A.). Production of microalgae

biomass by the proposed global facility (Fig. 2B.). Notes: wastewater (WW), biomass

(bm), biomass to chemicals (bCh), biomass to anaerobic digestion (bAd), biomass to

carbon storage (bCS), products (p), screening (1), concentrated CO>2 stream from power

plant (2), algae growth bioreactor (3), clarifier (4), gravity thickening (5),

production/extraction of chemicals (6), anaerobic digestion (7). Atmospheric CO>

(ACO2). Deep ocean water (DOW). Biomass disposal “as is” for carbon storage in deep

ocean or at oceanic floor (SOF). Bioreactor for microalgae cultivation (RMC).

Washington Academy of Sciences

Table 1

Characteristics of Classic Production of Microalgae and by the Proposed

Global Facility

Category Classic Production! Proposed Global Facility

Production?

Cultivation mode Monoculture Polyculture

Macroalgae cultivation No Yes

Location Onshore Off-shore and Onshore

Water Source Fresh-, marine-, WW Brackish-, marine-, WW

~ Majoruse of Biomass —~Production of chemicals _—sCarbon capture and storage _

Minor use of Biomass Carbon capture and storage Production of chemicals

CO2 Captured from Concentrated CO2 streams (CS) Atmosphere & CS

Actual CO2 concentration >2,500 ppm > 280 ppm

Desired biomass yield > 100 ton ha"! y"! > 10 ton ha"! y"!

Total Size 1.0*107 ha 0.6 to 10.3*10* ha

CO capture capacity 1.0*10° ton CO2 y?! 15:63* 10? ton CO y*

Adapted from: 'Benemann et al 2001, 'Pedroni et al 2001, 'Fishman et al

2010, *This work.

Size of the Global Facility for Reduction of Atmospheric Carbon

Dioxide

The photosynthetic machinery of microalgae and _ other

photosynthetic organisms captures atmospheric CO2 to store carbon in

newly made biomass (C106H2630110Ni6P). Equation 1 approximates the

process of photosynthetic COz capture and carbon storage in biomass:

106CO2 +16NO3+137H20 + H3PO4 €©P> 106H2630110N16P+13802+150H (Eq. ] s)

(Heckey and Kilman 1988, Martin 1990, Brand 1991, Falkowski 2000, and

elsewhere).

Microalgae capture about 1.31 ton of CO2 to make 1.0 ton of new

biomass. At its full capacity global facilities will reduce atmospheric CO2

by 2.0 ppm per year; this means capturing 1.56*10'° ton of atmospheric

CO>2 to produce 1.19*10!° ton of biomass for carbon storage.

Spring 2018

Currently, a commercial microalgae bioreactor produces up to 100

ton of biomass ha! yr!; in theory, maximal theoretical microalgae

production rate is about 280 ton biomass per ha’! yr! (Bilanovic ef al.,

2012). To capture 1.56*10'° ton of COz per year, assuming a microalgae

yield of 75 tons ha''yr', the total area of the global facility for cultivation

of microalgae should be about 1.59*108 hectares, but could be from 6.6*10°

to 12.0*10* hectares if nutrient, and other limitations decrease biomass

yield. For example; the literature reports and our data show biomass

production, in high rate algal ponds treating wastewater is from 10 to 27 g

m~* day!; or from 36.5 to 98.5 ton ha! yr! (Shelef and Soeder 1980,

Valigore ef al., 2012, this work). Assuming a biomass yield of just 10 ton

ha! yr! the area of the global facilities bioreactors would need to be

1.20*10? ha (see “Desired biomass yield” in Table 1). Biomass production

of 10 ton ha"! yr! is achievable even under polar conditions where primary

productivity increased from 130-220 mg C m” da’! up to 790 mgC m* day

' following iron fertilization (Gervais, Riebesell and Gorbunov 2002). We

expect biomass production in both offshore and onshore bioreactors to equal

production in high rate algal ponds treating wastewater. Most of the

bioreactors will be located in tropical and subtropical zones where climate

favors high biomass production.

Construction of the global facilities will start by building a single

plant for reduction of atmospheric COz; the first bioreactor could be of 1.0

hectare size or larger. Upon completion, the network would require the

construction of 1.59 million bioreactors of average size 100 hectares.

Delivering nutrients to this number of bioreactors at various locations

around the world will be a logistic nightmare and a large financial burden.

Difficulties with nutrient supply are discussed below (see section on

nutrient supply).

_ Apart from a massive nutrient requirement, the global facility will

generate 3.27*10/ ton of biomass daily. Almost all biomass produced in

offshore bioreactors will be disposed of below the euphotic zone for carbon

storage at the ocean floor. This discarded biomass will be subject to some

degradation and recycling by marine detritovores before eventually

becoming part of the marine sediment (DeLaRocha 2006), but would not be

expected to reenter the atmosphere as free CO2. Biomass produced in on-

shore bioreactors will be stored in deep-geological formations. A relatively

Washington Academy of Sciences

small fraction of on-shore generated biomass could be raw material for

production/extraction of chemicals, or used as a feed in agro- and aqua-

culture, or employed as fertilizer and soil stabilizing material. Biomass

disposal, harvesting, storage and processing are discussed below (see

section on biomass harvesting).

An investment of about 22.0 trillion dollars (adapted from Bilanovic

et al., 2009, 2012, Bilanovic, 2015) would be needed to build a global

network; this equals what was 28.6% of worlds GDP in 2014. This might

be deemed too costly, but 28.6 % of world’s GDP will be lost in less than

7.5 years if atmospheric COz2 rises above 450 ppm. Assuming just 0.2

operators per hectare of the global facility, the investment will also bring

over 200 million new jobs to developing and developed economies.

Photosynthetic organisms other than microalgae also capture

atmospheric CO>2 store it in biomass. For example Bolton (2008) reported

producing Ulva biomass at over 95 ton dry weight per ha! yr’; this is

equivalent of removing over 164 ton of CO2 ha" yr! from the atmosphere.

Off-shore bioreactors should be constructed to grow macroalgae in attached

rather than in suspended (i.e. drift) mode thus ensuring easy export of

macroalgae biomass to the ocean bottom; for brevity these organisms are

not discussed further. For the same reason we will not discuss: a) rate at

which fossil fuels will be replaced by renewable sources of energy, and b)

physicochemical carbon capture and storage from stationary CO2 sources.

However, biomass other than microalgae, carbon capture from stationary

sources, and substitution of fossil fuels with renewable energy sources

would be valuable help in reducing atmospheric CO2 to or below 350+25

Construction of Bioreactors for Cultivation of Microalgae

Bioreactors could be located both offshore and on-shore. Those on-

shore would operate in batch, continuous, and “fill & draw” mode. “Fill and

draw” mode used in offshore bioreactors would simplify construction,

operation, nutrient management, microalgae harvesting and avoid washout.

We envision “fill and draw” bioreactors with day and night cycles. During

the night (draw) cycle, the bioreactor is submerged below euphotic zone

(Fig 3B). During the day or biomass growth cycle the bioreactor floats at

the ocean surface (Fig. 3B).

Spring 2018

Different design options are available to make offshore bioreactors;

one such design is illustrated in Fig 3A. The growth compartment (“2” in

Fig 3A) and transparent cover (“1” in Fig 3A) are in fact a single vessel

holding the microalgal polyculture. The vehicle also holds air to make the

bioreactor float when growing microalgae at the ocean surface. To

submerge the bioreactor air is replaced with ocean water. When the

concentration of microalgae is sufficiently high the bioreactor sinks to the

selected depth, 90 to 95 percent of the microalgae culture will be discharged

for deep sea storage and be displaced with deep ocean water to providing

nutrients for the next growth cycle (Fig. 3B.).

Harvest experiments (15 marine microalgae tested) show that in the

dark 80 to 90 % of microalgae biomass settles within 6 to 9 hours. An

aliquot of biomass left in the bioreactor after discharge during the night

cycle (i.e. 5 to 10% of culture volume; “t=6” in Figure 3B) will be an

inoculum for next growth cycle. The growth cycle may last for several days

while the microalgae grow to a desired density. At a flow rate of 50 m? min

' it will take about 7.5 hours to fill a hectare of the bioreactor’s growth

section (“2” in Figure 3A) to a depth of 2.25 meters (i.e. 90% of growth

section volume). In submersible offshore bioreactors, intake of deep

oceanic water, much like uptake and release of air, will be easy to control

and regulated by uni- or bi-directional valves (3a, 3b,3c and 3d” in Fig.

3A.). To improve biomass export to the ocean bottom the biomass will be

disposed of below the euphotic zone. Bioreactors also could be designed to

incorporate “wave pump technology” (White at al 2010) to bring nutrients

from deep water to the bioreactor’s microalgae growth section.

Off-shore bioreactors will operate under seasonal and daily

irradiance and temperature oscillations, wave height and frequency

changes, and other changes; to maximize biomass production, hence CO2

capture and storage, computer routines will be developed to control the

length of night and day cycles in response to changes. The size of the

inoculum and rate of addition of nutrient rich deep water will also be

adjusted in response to daily and seasonal changes.

Washington Academy of Sciences

Surface Water

Fe, N, P

Rich Deep Water

Fig. 3. Offshore bioreactor — potential schematics (Fig 3A). Operation of offshore

bioreactor (Fig 3B). Notes: “1” Transparent cover holds air to provide buoyancy during

growth cycle (i.e. operation at water surface), “2” Growth compartment, “3a” Deep water

intake and excess biomass discharge valves, “3b” Nutrient depleted water discharge valve

, “3c” Flow control valves, “3d” Air displacement valves, “4” Instrumentation and alike,

“5” Ballast - a material more dense than ocean water to lower the center of gravity of the

bioreactor and to provide stability (can be designed to act as keel and/or auto-rudder, “6”

Ocean surface. Surface water displace air for submersion. Following biomass settling

deep water displaces desired volume of nutrient depleted water. Not to scale. “t=1” End

of the Day Cycle; “t=2” Night Cycle begins; “t=3” Night Cycle ends: biomass settled —

discharge of nutrient depleted water; “t=4” New Day Cycle begins — same as t’’8”; “t=5”

same as “t=1”; “t=6” same as “t=2”; “t=7” Night Cycle ends: discharge of excess

biomass and nutrient depleted water.

Offshore bioreactors will float at the surface of ocean when wave

height is less than 2 to 3 meters. Bioreactors capable of floating on larger

waves will, probably be too expensive to make. To avoid damage during

extreme weather events bioreactors will be submerged for the entire

duration of the events such as hurricanes or when wave height exceeds

Spring 2018

certain pre-selected number. Circular motion of surface waves extends into

deep water to about one-half of the wave length; this is the “wave base”

below which surface waves have no effect on motion of deep water;

bioreactors will be submerged to the wave base or deeper during the night

cycle and also during extreme weather events.

For fast microalgae growth most of the offshore bioreactors should

be located in tropical and subtropical zones. The concentration of nutrients

is higher in deep waters of the Indian and Pacific Oceans than in the Atlantic

(Table 2); for this reason most off-shore bioreactors should be located in the

Indian and Pacific Oceans rather than in the Atlantic. In addition to being

submersible, bioreactors should be equipped with auto-pilot, like most

sailing boats, to keep their position within tropical & subtropical gyres.

Offshore bioreactors for cultivation of macro-algae will probably be used

in temperate and polar zones. Offshore bioreactors will be modular to work

as a single bioreactor or as a group containing few bioreactors. Both

anchored and unanchored bioreactors will be constructed. Maintenance and

repair of unanchored bioreactors will be done on preselected points of the

gyres. All offshore bioreactors will be equipped with GPS and signaling

devices. Off-shore bioreactors could also be designed to incorporate

removal/collection of plastic debris from the great Pacific garbage patch.

The concentration of dissolved inorganic carbon is higher than 1980

umol in marine water (Key ef al. 2004; [DIC] = [CO2] + [HCO%3] + [CO?3] )

meaning that COz2 will not limit microalgae growth; even so, bioreactors

will be aerated to provide good mixing of the microalgae culture.

If “standard” offshore bioreactors microalgae growth compartments

are 1.0 hectares in area, roughly 159,000,000 bioreactors need to be built to

bring atmospheric CO2 to its full COz2 reduction level. In 2015 the auto

industry made 90,683,072 cars and other commercial vehicles (OICA, 2015

Production Statistics; http:/(www.oica.net/category/production-statistics/).

These vehicles are more complex to construct than offshore bioreactors.

Making 15,900,000 bioreactors per year for 10 years should not be an

unsurmountable problem.

Washington Academy of Sciences

Potential Difficulties

Nutrient Supply

To grow algae, iron (Fe), nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P) and other

nutrients are needed (Eq. 1). At full capacity the global network of

bioreactors will consume 7.50*10® ton of N-NO3, 1.04*10° ton of P-PO«

and 0.19*10° ton Fe yearly. The world’s fertilizer industry cannot provide

this. At its full capacity the global facility network will use almost 7.0 times

more nitrogen and roughly 25 times more phosphorous than the industry

produces per year (FAO 2012). Nutrients (N, P, Fe) will come from oceanic

water below euphotic zone, and from wastewater.

The concentration of N, P and Fe in water below the euphotic zone

is much higher than in the zone (More and Braucher 2007, Libes 2009).

Atlantic Ocean water contains roughly '/3 less iron (Fe) than Pacific Ocean

water (Table 2). The iron to phosphorus ratio (Fe: P) of 0.1 to 0.001 is,

generally considered suitable for growth of most microalgae (Johnson

2006).

To produce 75 ton microalgal biomass per hectare per year about

128 m? of Pacific Ocean deep water should be delivered each minute per

hectare of bioreactor; about 200 m? of deep water should be delivered per

hectare of offshore bioreactor each minute 1f the bioreactor is located 1n the

Atlantic (Table 2). Smaller volumes of deep oceanic water will provide

daily N and P needs of bioreactors located in either the Atlantic or the

Pacific (Table 2); other nutrients will not limit microalgae growth since their

concentrations are sufficiently high in ocean water.

Ata flow rate of 200 m? per minute over 920,000 m? of deep Atlantic

Ocean water will be delivered per hectare of bioreactor during a 12 hour

day; at flow rate of 128 m? per minute, more than 92,000 m? of Pacific water

should be delivered to provide N, P and Fe (Table 2). Under laboratory

conditions the fastest growing marine microalgae we cultivated double their

biomass about two times per day. Offshore bioreactors will have no

temperature, light, pH and other controls that promote fast growth; without

the controls we expect microalgae to double their biomass not more than

once per day. To simplify construction, operation, nutrient management,

and efficient disposal of microalgae the offshore bioreactors will work in

“fill and draw” mode. The “fill and draw” mode balances providing

Spring 2018

nutrients to the growing algae with prevention of washout because the

disposal of microalgae biomass and the discharge of nutrient depleted water

can be made independent operations (“t=3 & t=7” in Fig. 3B.); offshore

bioreactors are expected to operate at biomass residence time longer than

few days, but probably shorter than two weeks.

Table 2

Concentration of nitrogen (NO3-N), phosphorous (POs-P), and iron (Fe)

below euphotic zone

Ocean Concentration below FR (m°/min)

Euphotic Zone (uM)

~ NOsN* POsP* Fe* | NOs-N POsP Fe —

Sic ee ON nO; rn (0k ah Rai

Indian 33.60 2.39 38 34

TW RRaic” Se a8 30s = Nees to ye ae

Notes: Bioreactor size: growth area 1.0 hectare; depth 2.5 meter; FR =

flow rate of oceanic water to satisfy daily nutrient needs for the bioreactor

producing 75 ton microalgae per hectare per year. “Adapted from: Libes

(2009), More and Braucher (2007).

Much less iron is needed to grow oceanic microalgae than coastal

microalgae; the oceanic microalgae Fe:P ratio is < 10“, coastal microalgae

have Fe:P ratio from 107 to 10°, both coastal and oceanic cyanobacteria

have Fe:P ratio from 10°!“ to 107’ (Brand, 1991). In the deep Atlantic the

Fe:P ratio is about 0.00036 and in the deep Pacific about 0.00021. A

polyculture of native microalgae will be grown in offshore and onshore

bioreactors. Oceanic microalgae will be the dominant population in

bioreactors operated off-shore provided no Fe 1s added to the bioreactors.

However, various Fe: P ratios will be used to manage the make-up of

microalgae polyculture in a particular offshore bioreactor during a given

season but also to inhibit growth of toxic algae.

To increase phytoplankton productivity of the southern ocean and to

remove an additional 11*10’ tons CO2 per year Martin suggested iron

fertilization (Martin 1990); this would be equivalent of reducing

atmospheric CO2 by 1.37 ppm per year. In our understanding iron

fertilization should not be practiced in ocean waters which, being an open

Washington Academy of Sciences

system, lack mechanisms to control the transport and the fate of new

phytoplankton growth (Bilanovic 2015). However, iron fertilization should

be practiced in offshore bioreactors where control of both disposal and

utilization of phytoplankton biomass are possible. By deploying iron

fertilization in offshore bioreactors the size of the global network could be

much smaller than the sizes suggested above. One hectare of bioreactor will

need about 22 mole of iron to produce 75 ton phytoplankton per year. Iron

delivery will not be problematic since 22 mole of 0.02 M iron solution

would occupy a tank of roughly 1.1 m?* which can sit in a bioreactor’s

instrumentation compartment (‘“4” in Fig 3.)

One cubic meter of domestic wastewater contains up to 53,000 times

more N and up to 89,000 more P than one cubic meter of deep ocean water.

Domestic wastewater should be used in bioreactors located onshore. To

minimize pressure on freshwater resources brackish or saline water will be

mixed with domestic sewage to operate onshore bioreactors; these

bioreactors will be constructed to provide water for irrigation (see section

on irrigation water).

Energy Supply

One hectare of offshore bioreactor will consume up to 100 kWh

electricity daily. The electricity will be generated “on site” using ocean

thermal energy converters, waves, wind, photovoltaic, or combination of

these renewable energy sources. More than 160 watt of electricity can be

generated per m of commercial photovoltaic panel today. To make 100 kW

electricity during a day of 12 hours for a hectare of bioreactor, assuming

photovoltaic will be the only source of electricity, less than 75 m* of

commercial panels will be installed above microalgae growth section (“2”

in Figure 2). The current price of an installed residential photovoltaic

system is $2.91+0.28 per watt (Chung ef a/ 2015). The estimated energy

cost ranges from $ 5 to $12 per ton of captured CO2 (Table 3). To provide

electricity during submersion batteries will be incorporated into bioreactors.

Biomass - Harvesting, Processing and Storage

Biomass harvesting is a key operation in the production of chemicals

from microalgae as well as in the microalgal treatment of wastewater. The

purpose of harvesting is to increase the concentration of biomass from less

Spring 2018

than 1.0 percent in the bioreactor to 5.0 or more percent after harvesting.

Standard harvesting by flocculation with subsequent flotation and

centrifugation cannot be applied on the scale of the proposed global

network. Harvesting of microalgae biomass by sedimentation in vertical or

inclined tubes or by use of feed feeders could be used in both off-shore and

onshore bioreactors. But there is no need to concentrate/harvest microalgae

biomass which is scheduled for storage at ocean bottom or in deep

geological structures. Such biomass should be released “as is” after settling

below euphotic zone during the bioreactor’s night cycle (“t=7” in Fig. 3B.).

The global facility will produce 1.19*10'° tons biomass per year; if

all this biomass sinks to the ocean bottom the downward export will amount

to about 35 mg C m” day”. In a recent review, Turner quoted sinking

velocity of phytodetritus and diatom cells to be from 1 to 150 m day!

(Turner, 2015). It is not clear how much of biomass produced by our global

network will reach ocean bottom and is not clear how fast that biomass will

get to the bottom. The concentration of organisms in deep water and the

bottom sediments is expected to change due to an increase in the food

supply. The export of microalgal biomass to the ocean bottom will not bring

environmental calamities. In fact it is much safer to store carbon at the

bottom of ocean than in geological carbon storage which argues formation

of supercritical “CO2 lakes” at the ocean bottom (Herzog 2001 and

elsewhere). Microalgae biomass is also a better CO2 storage material than

COz itself because carbon in biomass is more inert than carbon in CO2 form.

Biomass contains at least 8% more carbon per unit weight than CO2. Per

unit volume, microalgae biomass contains 14 percent more carbon than CO2

even when the density of COz 1s equal to that of supercritical CO2 (i.e. ~0.8

g mL-1). In addition, biomass storage in both terrestrial and aquatic

environments is a nature-tested method of carbon storage.

Costs

Capture and storage costs for on-shore and offshore bioreactors are

given in Table 3. Cost estimates for chemical CO2 capture from power

plants, but without storage and transportation costs, range $23 to $112 per

ton of CO2 (Gibbins and Chalmers 2008). Capturing and storing 90% of the

CO2 from a concentrated CO2 source such as a power plant would increase

price of electricity by 2c/kWh (Herzog, 2001). We estimated that cost of

Washington Academy of Sciences

geological carbon capture and storage could easily be from $120 to more

than $ 450 per ton of COz.

The global network will capture and store atmospheric carbon at a

smaller cost than chemical and physical processes. Both on-shore and off-

shore bioreactors will capture atmospheric CO2 at costs significantly

smaller than the cost of microalgae carbon capture from concentrated CO2

sources (i.e. “Biofuel and Wastewater!” in Table 3). Costs of land and

harvesting are not included into estimation of “Global Network” costs;

non-arable land and ocean surface will be available at no charge. Other costs

such as labor, electricity, O&M costs are significantly lower because

offshore bioreactors will be fully automatized and remotely controlled

which reduce the costs. Low wages in developing economies will reduce

labor costs in onshore bioreactors. For example Lundquist ef al (2010)

assumed operator costs of $5740 ha! yr! for a classic microalgae plant; in

most developing economies this money is sufficient to pay yearly salary of

2 or 3 operators. Administrative, insurance, biomass hauling, permitting,

and similar cost categories will be either completely eliminated or minimal

in the global network when compared to classic microalgae production.

Upon completion the global network will strengthen environmental

sustainability and, by providing jobs, strengthen global security. This means

that, like military and police forces, the facility should be a “not for profit”

entity. Accordingly designers & operators will focus on CO2 capture and on

biomass disposal/storage rather than on profitable production of chemicals

from the biomass.

Spring 2018

Table 3

Comparison of microalgal atmospheric CO2 capture and storage costs (7.é.

Global Network’) with costs of classic microalgae production (i.e. Biofuel

and Wastewater’).

Cost Category Biofuel and Global Network?

Wastewater! Onshore RMC _Off-shore RMC

Construction (bioreactor) 363-426 75-150 75-200

Construction (other) GMUIER ys) 25-60 25-45

Land/Ocean 258-589 0 0

CO2 74 -50 -50

Electricity 238-283 5-12 5-12

Harvesting 149-461 20-100 0

Labor 100-135 7-38 1-5

O&M 37-62 10-25 10-20

Other 841-1383 5-10 5-10

Total Biomass 2771-4568 97-345 71-217

Total CO2 2115-3487 74-263 54-166

Notes: Numbers are in $ per ton (biomass or CO?) ha! yr!. “Biofuel and Wastewater!”

adapted from Lundquist et al (2010); “Global Network?” adapted from Author ef al.,

(2012); adjusted for inflation (BLS, 2016). “Harvesting” includes: primary and secondary

clarifies, dryer, 011 extraction. “Construction (other)” includes: buildings, oil extraction,

biogas turbine, silo storage, roads, vehicles efc.; for details see Lundquist ef a/ (2010) and

Author ef al., (2012).

Environmental Impacts

Because of its size the global network will have both local and

global impacts. Reduction of atmospheric CO2 will affect the aquatic and

atmospheric environment and organisms. The reduction of atmospheric

CO2 to or below 350 ppm will slow down ocean acidification and will be

helpful in preventing average planetary temperature increases beyond 1.5

°C. Biodiversity losses are expected to decrease, at least for coral reefs.

The age of seawater (the time elapsed since a given portion of deep

water was last exposed to the atmosphere) is about 800 to 900 years in the

Pacific, and 200 — 400 years in Atlantic (England, 1995). The temperature

of deep waters is about 2 —3 ve (England, 1995). This means that carbon in

microalgal biomass may not be incorporated into bottom sediments and

Washington Academy of Sciences

could stay in deep ocean waters for at least 200 year, but probably longer

(DeLaRocha 2006). Storage of microalgae at the ocean bottom is likely to

alter the composition of populations of the water column and of the bottom-

dwelling organisms due to higher food supply.

Toxic Microalgae

Iron fertilization could stimulate growth of toxic algae; Trick ef al.

(2010) demonstrated the fertilization changes structure of phytoplankton

population by benefiting the growth of toxic Pseudonitzschia spp. The

authors also noted that “the manner in which iron is added” to water affects

toxin production by Pseudonitzschi. Iron fertilization, much like N and P

supply, can be controlled and managed in off-shore bioreactors. The same

holds for disposal of microalgae biomass from the bioreactors below the

euphotic zone. During first few years of operation of the global facility

different nutrient management strategies (i.e. frequency and manner of

addition, Fe:P ratio) will be tested to select those which will maximize

biomass production in polyculture while minimizing growth of toxic

microalgae at a given location and through seasons of the year.

Phytoplankton grazers should be monitored in parallel to learn about effects

of bioreactor submersion during the night cycle on zooplankton

concentration/survival and resulting changes in composition of the

microalgal polyculture. In addition, the duration and the frequency of night

cycle could probably be used to control the concentration and the ratio of

phyto- to zooplankton in offshore bioreactors.

Benefits of the Global Facility

Nitrogen Source and Deceleration of Ocean Acidification

Deep ocean waters are rich in N-NO3 (Table 2); alkalinity changes

following uptake of nitrate have been reported (Brewer and Goldman,

1976). Microalgal uptake of a mole of nitrate will generate a mole of

alkalinity (Wolf-Gladrow ef al 2007). At full capacity the global network

will consume 1.21 10'> mole N-NO3 per year to add the same number of

moles of alkalinity to ocean water. Establishment of the global network will

decelerate acidification of the world’s oceans.

Spring 2018

DD)

Jobs

To reduce atmospheric CO2 by 2 ppm per year, assuming a

microalgae yield of 75 tons ha'yr', the area of bioreactors for cultivation

of microalgae will need to be about 1.6*10* hectares. Roughly % of this area

will be offshore bioreactors. About 0.4*10° hectares of bioreactor will be

constructed onshore. Over 200 million people will work for the global

network assuming 1 operator per 50 hectares of offshore bioreactor and 5

operators per hectare of onshore bioreactor. Lower labor costs in countries

with developing economies will allow for this larger labor force.

Importantly, unemployment is also rampant in many of these countries. A

lack of job opportunities and large unemployment cause numerous safety

and security challenges in both developed and developing economies. To

provide employment, thus eliminate some of safety and security risks, we

assumed 5 operators per hectare knowing that 0.5 operators per hectare of

onshore bioreactor will be sufficient.

Microalgae Biomass - A Raw Material for production of Chemicals, and

Feed

There is a large body of works describing cultivation of microalgae

for production of bulk and specialty chemicals, fuels, food and feed.

Bivalves, for example, eat phytoplankton and other particulates and use

dissolved COz2 to make their CaCO3 shell. Some of the offshore bioreactors

might be designed for co-cultivation of bivalves and microalgae; this will

strengthen carbon export to the ocean bottom and will help production of

food. For increased food production a portion of the biomass grown in

bioreactors will be released into surface water at selected locations and at

selected times of the year. The only function of the global network will be

reduction of atmospheric COz2 and safe storage of carbon captured in

biomass. However, interested parties involved in the network will decide

for themselves whether and to what extent they will divert a portion of

generated biomass to other uses.

Irrigation Water

Lack of potable water is a global systemic risk. Under desert

conditions up to 0.60 L of water can be produced per m* hr! from a solar

still (Badran 2007). If 50% of the surface area of onshore bioreactors were

Washington Academy of Sciences

covered with light-transparent plastic to collect water evaporating from the

bioreactor, assuming water evaporation rate of 0.4 L per m? and hour, one

hectare of bioreactor will yield in about 20 m? of water perfectly suitable

for irrigation and, probably, for other uses. This water will help create jobs

in fields outside the network.

The network is expected to yield other collateral benefits and

challenges; the benefits should not be exaggerated and the challenges

should not be inflated with the intention of slowing down or preventing

construction of the facility.

Conclusions

Atmospheric COz rises because of ever increasing anthropogenic

CO2 emissions. High concentrations of atmospheric CO2 have overrun the

ability of natural carbon sinks to absorb CO2 from the atmosphere

efficiently. Rising atmospheric COz2 intensifies climate change and

deterioration of the planetary life support system. Complete elimination of

anthropogenic COz2 emissions, if enacted alone, will not stop climate

change.

To decelerate climate change and to prevent further degradation of

the planet the world’s economies must consider ways to reduce the

concentration of CO2 1n the atmosphere.. A global network of the type we

describe herev could be built within 10 to 25 years with a goal of reducing

atmospheric CO2 to < 350 ppm. We recognize that a project of this scale

will require an unprecedented level of global cooperation and resolve. Some

will find this proposal fanciful given the track record of our species for

ignoring global problems until their solution is completely out of reach. Our

proposed solution to reducing atmospheric CO2 seems far-fetched and

extreme today, it will need be more extreme tomorrow.

A global network of bioreactors such as we propose would be the

largest structure ever built if large enough to solve our problem with

atmospheric carbon; if constructed exclusively offshore it would occupy

about 0.94 % of Pacific surface. If all the plants were located on-shore they

would occupy about 10.57% of the surface area of the world’s subtropical

deserts.

Spring 2018

A network of this size would reduce atmospheric CO2 by 2 ppm

year. It will take 50 to 60 years to bring atmospheric CO2 to < 350 ppm.

Anthropogenic CO2 emissions coming from various sources like agriculture

will probably continue into the foreseeable future. Even so, once the global

network drops atmospheric CO2 to 350 ppm, anthropogenic CO2 emissions

and the global network can be used as two large levers to regulate

atmospheric COz2 within +2.0 ppm.

References

Badran O.O. (2007) Experimental study of the enhancement parameters on single slope

solar still productivity. Desalination 209, 136-143

Benemann J., Pedroni M.P., Davison J., Becker H., Bergman P. (2001) Proc. 1* Natl.

Conf. on Carbon Sequestration. Dept. of Energy - National Energy Technology

Laboratory. https://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/03/carbon-

seq/PDFs/017.pdf Accessed 10.08.2015.

Bilanovic D., Andargatchew A., Kroeger T., and G. Shelef (2009) Freshwater and marine

microalgae sequestering of CO2 at different C and N concentrations — Response

surface methodology analysis. Energy Conversion and Management. 50(2):262-267.

Bilanovic D., Holland M., and R. Armon (2012) Microalgae CO2 sequestering —

modeling microalgae production costs. Energy Conversion and Management. 58:104

— 109. doi: 10.1016/j.enconman.2012.01.007.

Bilanovic D., (2015) Carbon footprint — An environmental sustainability indicator of

large scale CO2 sequestration. in Environmental Indicators , Armon R. and Hanninen

O. (eds.) Springer-Verlag GmbH, Heidelberg, Germany, ISBN 978-94-017-9498-5.

BLS (2016) Bureau of Labor Statistics, CPI Inflation Calculator.

http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm Accessed 05.02.2016.

Bolton J.J., Robertson-Andersson D.V., Shuuluka D., Kandjengo L. (2008) Growing

Ulva (Chlorophyta) in an integrated system as a commercial crop for abalone feed in

South Africa; a SWOT analysis. J. Appl. Phycol. pp 9, DOI 10.1007/s10811-008-

9385-6

BP, 2015, Statistical Review of World Energy 2015,

http://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/energy-economics/statistical-review-of-

world-energy.html Accessed 02.02.2016.

Brand, E.L. (1991) Minimum iron requirements of marine phytoplankton and the

implications for the biogeochemical control of new production. Limnol. Oceanog.,

36, 8, 1756-1771

Brewer P.G., Goldman J.C. (1976) Alkalinity changes generated by phytoplankton

growth. Limnology and Oceanography, 5, 21, 108-117

Washington Academy of Sciences

Chung D., Davidson C., Fu R., Ardani K., Margolis R. (2015) U.S. photovoltaic prices

and cost breakdowns: Q1 2015 benchmarks for residential, commercial, and utility-

scale systems. Technical report NREL/TP-6A20-64746

Committee on Geoengineering Climate: Technical Evaluation and Discussion of Impacts;

Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate; Ocean Studies Board; Division on Earth

and Life Studies; National Research Council (2015a). Climate Intervention: Carbon

Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration. National Academies Press, Washington,

D.C., ISBN 978-0-309-30529-7 | DOI 10.17226/18805.

Committee on Geoengineering Climate: Technical Evaluation and Discussion of Impacts;

Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate; Ocean Studies Board; Division on Earth

and Life Studies; National Research Council (2015b). Climate Intervention:

Reflecting Sunlight to Cool Earth. National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.,

ISBN 978-0-309-3 1482-4 | DOI 10.17226/18988

De La Rocha CL. 2006. The Biological Pump. In: Treatise on Geochemistry; vol. 6.,.

Pergamon Press, pp. 83-111.

DOE/EIA-0384, 2011, Annual Energy Review,

https://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/annual/pdf/aer.pdf, Accessed 10.18.2016.

ESRL, 2016, Annual Mean Growth Rate for Mauna Loa, Hawaii

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html Accessed February 28, Accessed

03.15.2016.

England H.M., (1995) The age of water and ventilation timescales in a global ocean

model. J. Physical Oceanography. 25, 2756 - 2777

Falkowski P.G., (2000) Rationalizing elemental ratios in unicellular alga —Minireview. J.

Phycol., 36, 3-6

FAO (2012) Current world fertilizer trends and outlook to 2016, Food and Agricultural

Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 2012, pp 43

ftp://ftp.fao.org/ag/agp/docs/cwftol6.pdf Accessed 06.06.2016.

Fishman D., Majundar R., Morello J., Pate R., Yang J. (Eds) (2010) National algal

biofuels technology roadmap.

https://www L.eere.energy.gov/bioenergy/pdfs/algal biofuels _roadmap.pdf Accessed

05.25.2016,

Gervais F., Riebesell U., Gorbunov, M.Y. (2002) Changes in primary productivity of

chlorophyll a in response to iron fertilization in Southern Polar frontal Zone. Limono.

Ocanogr. 47,5, 1324-1335

Gibbins J., Chalmers H. (2008) Carbon capture and storage. Energy policy, 36 4317-

4322

Graedel TE, Allenby BR (2010) Industrial Ecology and sustainable engineering. Prentice

Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ. 353 pp.

Hansen J., M. Sato, P. Kharecha, ef al., Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should

Humanity Aim? Open Atmos. Sc. J. 2 (2008) 217-31.

Spring 2018

Hansen J., M. Sato, P. Kharecha, K. von Schuckmann, Earth’s energy imbalance and

implications. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 11 (2011) 13421-13449.

Hansen J., M. Sato, P. Kharecha, D. Beerling, R. Berner, V. Masson-Delmotte, M.

Pagani, M. Raymo, D. L. Royer, J. C. Zachos, 2008, Target atmospheric CO2: Where

should humanity aim? Open Atmos. Sci. J. 2, 217-231

Heckey R.E., Kilham P. (1988) Nutrient limitation of phytoplankton and merine

environmenta. A review of recent evidence on the effects of enrichment.

Limono. Ocanogr. 33,4, 796-822

Helm D., The Kyoto approach has failed. Nature 491 (2012) 663-665.

Herzog H.J. (2001) What future for carbon capture and sequestration? Env Sci Technol.

35,7, 148A — 153A

Hilbertz W., (1979) Electrodeposition of minerals in sea water: experiments and

applications. IEEE J. Ocean Engineering, OE-4, 3, 1-19

IPCC, 2016, Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report — Fifth Assessment Report, Figure

3.] http://ar5-syr.ipec.ch/topic_pathways.php Accessed 04.01.2016.

IPCC, 2013, Working Group I, Approved Summary for Policymakers, IPCC 5"

Assessment Report 2013. 1536 pp.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WGIARS_ALL_ FINAL.pdf

Accessed 04.01. 2015.

IPCC, 2007, Climate Change 2007 — Synthesis Report, Geneva, Switzerland, 112 pp;

https://www.ipcc.ch/publications and data/publications ipcc fourth assessment rer

ort synthesis report.htm Accessed 04.01.2015.

Johnson Z. (2006) Biological Oceanography — Biogeochemistry;

http://www.soest.hawaii.edu/oceanography/zij/ocn62 1/OCN62 1-20060215-

biogeochemistry.pdf (accessed 2016)

Kharecha A.P., F.C. Kutscher, J.E. Hansen, E. Mazria, Options for near-term phaseout of

CQO) emissions from coal use in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44 (2010)

4050-4062.

Libes M.S. Introduction to marine biogeochemistry, 2™ Ed. Academic Press, 2009, 909p

Lundquist T.J., Woertz I.C., Quinn N.W.T., Benemann J.R. (2010) A realistic technology

end engineering assessment of algae biofuel production. Energy Bioscience Institute

— UC Berkeley

Martin, J.H. (1990) Glacial-interglacial CO? change: The iron hypothesis.

Paleoceanography, 5, 1, 1-13

More J.K. and O. Braucher (2007) Observations of dissolved iron concentrations in the

World Ocean: implications and constraints for ocean biogeochemical models.

Biogeosciences Discuss., 4, 1241-1277, 2007. www.biogeosciences-

discuss.net/4/1241/2007/ (accessed 2016)

Washington Academy of Sciences

NASA, 2012, OMEGA Project 2009-2012

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/research/OMEGA/#. VO8xSfkrI1J Accessed

02.29.2016

NOAA, 2015, Trends in Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide,

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/global.html, Accessed 02.29. 2016.

PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (2014) Trends in global CO>

emissions: 2014 report. http://www.pbl.nl/en/publications/trends-in-global-co2-

emissions-2014-report - Accessed 03.03 2016.

Pedroni P., Davison J., Beckert H., Bergman P., Benemann J. (2001) A Proposal to

Establish an International Network on Biofixation of CO) and Greenhouse Gas

Abatement with Microalgae. Proc. 1s' Natl. Conf. on Carbon Sequestration. Dept. of

Energy - National Energy Technology Laboratory

https://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/01/carbon_seq/p17.pdf . Accessed

09.10.20165.

Shelef G, Soeder C.J. (Eds.) Algae Biomass: Production and Use. and references therein,

Elsevier(1980).

SCRIPPS 2016, Record Annual Increase of Carbon Dioxide Observed for 2015,

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/2016/03/10/record-annual-increase-

of-carbon-dioxide-observed-for-2015/ Accessed 07.01.2016.

Smil V. 2010, Energy Transitions - History, Requirements, Prospects. Praeger an imprint

of ABC-CLIO, LLC Oxford England, 178pp.

Triick C.G., Bill B.D., Cochlan W.P. Wells N.L. Trainer V.L., Pickell L.D. (2010). Iron

enrichments stimulates toxic diatom production in high-nitrate, low chlorophyll areas.

PNAS, 107, 13, 5887-5892

Turner, J.T. (2015), Zooplankton fecal pellets, marine snow, phytodetritus, and the

ocean’s biological pump. Progress in Oceanography 130, 205-248

UN, 2015, Framework Convention on Climate Change,

https://unfecc.int/resource/docs/2015/cop21/eng/l09r01.pdf, Accessed 04.01.2016.

Valigore J.M., Gostomski P.A., Wareham D.G., O’Sullivan A.D. (2012) Effect of

hydraulic and solids retention times on productivity and settlability of microbial

(microalgal-bacterial) biomass grown on primary treated wastewater as a biofuel

feedstock. Water Research45, 2957-2964,

White A., Bjorkman K., Grabowski E., Letelier R., Poulos S., Watkins B., Karl D.,

(2010) An open ocean trial of controlled upwelling using wave pump technology. J.

Atm. Oceanic Technol, 27, 385-396

Wolf-Gladrow, D.A., Zeebe R.E., Klaas C., Koertzinger A., Dickson A.G. (2007) Total

alkalinity: the explicit conservative expression and its application to biogeochemical

processes. Marine Chemistry. 106, 287-300, doi:10.1016/j.marchem.2007.01.006,

2007.

Spring 2018

WRI, 2005, Navigating the numbers, greenhouse gas data and international climate ;

policy. World Resources Institute, 132pp. http://pdf.wri.org/navigating_numbers.pdf

Accessed 07.09.2015

Bios

Dragoljub (Drago) Bilanovic received his BSc in Chemistry/Biochemical

Engineering from University of Sarajevo. Technion — Israel institute of

Technology — awarded him MSc and DSc degrees in Environmental

Science/Biotechnology. Drago authored and coauthored over 80 papers,

book chapters, and conference presentations; 4 patents; 2 text books; 23

invited and other presentations; and 36 consulting and project reports.

Three of his papers were quoted more than 150 times. He did research and

taught in Canada, Germany, India, Israel, Spain, Maryland, Minnesota,

Namibia, and former Yugoslavia. Drago mentored 14 graduate students

and over 300 undergraduate students on 21 research projects in the USA

and overseas. He is the member of 12 professional societies; reviewer for

5 professional journals and recipient of 26 awards and fellowships.

Mark A. Holland is a Professor of Biology at Salisbury University where

he has been teaching genetics and plant biology for 25 years. His research

involving probiotic microbes for plants including algae has resulted in

nine awarded patents. He is a former President of the Washington

Academy of Sciences and Vice-President for Affiliate Affairs. He is

currently the Chair of the Mid-Atlantic Section of the American Society of

Plant Biologists.

Washington Academy of Sciences

THE TIPPING POT PROBLEM

P. T. Arveson

Solar Household Energy, Inc.

Abstract

Burns caused by scalding due to the tipping of a pot of hot water are a common

cause of injuries in developing countries, where food is often cooked over small

cookstoves that can be top heavy and inadequately supported. An international

standard for field testing of cookstoves is under development (ISO-19869). In

the course of drafting the safety assessment of this standard, questions arose

about how to quantify the risks of kitchen accidents. A quantitative definition

of cooking pot stability requires knowing the angle at which a pot becomes

unstable. This article describes a calculation of stability for the simple case of

a cylindrical container partially filled with liquid.

Introduction

ACCORDING TO THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION burns are a global

public health problem, accounting for many injuries and an estimated

180,000 deaths annually. The majority of these occur in low-income

countries, and the victims are primarily women and children. For instance,

in India over | million people are moderately or severely burned each year.

But burns also are a common type of injury in developed countries.

Accidents such as burns and scalds are most commonly related to cooking

Beak

Over the past five years an international team of consultants in

various fields have been developing ISO standards for the testing and

evaluation of cookstoves [3, 4]. “Cookstove” is the term the team used to

describe simple, low-cost devices or structures for cooking. They are

typically fueled by wood, kerosene (paraffin), or bottled gas. These devices

are prevalent in less-developed countries. Many governmental and

nongovernmental organizations are involved in the research, design, and

distribution of improved cookstoves, and this effort has been promoted and

coordinated by the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves [5, 6].

Recently the ISO TC-285 Working Group 3 completed a Draft

International Standard for field testing; this document will be released for

public review in a few months. Among other tests it includes protocols for

the evaluation of the safety of cookstoves in household settings. In addition

Spring 2018

to kitchen observations by trained inspectors, the protocol calls for a

“stability test” of cookstoves with a large pot of water. Observations of many

cookstove settings indicates that quite often this arrangement is top heavy

and prone to tipping or spilling. Figure 1 shows an example of this situation.

ra SE “

Figure 1: Typical cookstove with pot suspended at three points.

(Photograph courtesy of C. Pemberton-Pigott).

The ISO standards should encourage designers to consider how to

improve the stability of cooking vessels and the cookstove. In an effort to

quantify the stability requirements of a design, 1t would be helpful to define

the stability criterion for the general case.

The problem of the stability of a tipped cylinder or box has been

worked out previously (for example, [7]), but here we will include the mass

of a cylindrical container and review the calculations of stability. Clearly

this calculation could be applied equally to cooking pots, paint cans, 55-

gallon drums, or any other cylindrical containers with thin walls compared

to their diameter.

The object of interest 1s a cylindrical container partially filled with a

liquid. The container is assumed to have thin walls relative to its diameter

and is made of a material with density ~. The container wall thickness is f.

The liquid has a density of 6. The cylinder has radius a and the height of the

container is /; the height of the liquid in the container when level is /.

Washington Academy of Sciences

Figure 2: Condition for critical stability of a container of liquid.

From Figure 2 it is evident that the container will tip over when the

center of mass extends beyond a vertical line from the pivot point. Note that

the pivot point could be placed at less than the radius a of the container, i.e.

(a — p). This is actually a common — and dangerous -- situation with

cookstoves, where the pot support structure or contact points has a smaller

effective radius than cooking vessel used.

Tipping over will occur when angles 0+ y exceed 7/2. So the

criterion for stability is given by Equation (1):

9<%-arctan( —2s—| (1)

aA- Pp-X,

where @is the tipping angle and xm and zm are coordinates of the total

center of mass. (This calculation is restricted to angles such that the height

of the container / > 7 +2atan@ so that the liquid does not spill out and the

liquid level does not intersect the bottom of the container).

The calculation of the position of the center of mass can be facilitated

by orienting the geometry so as to simplify the problem: by inspection,

symmetry can best be exploited by setting the origin at the center of the base

of the cylindrical container. The problem is simplified further by dividing

the calculations into four parts: the cylindrical wedge of liquid, the cylinder-

Spring 2018

shaped portion of liquid, the cylinder walls and the circular base. The centers

of mass of each of these parts will be calculated and then combined to yield

the total center of mass in rectangular coordinates as Xm, Ym, Zm. Figure 3

illustrates this geometry.

Figure 3: Geometry for calculation of center of mass.

Part 1 — liquid cylindrical wedge

The mass of liquid in the wedge can be calculated by means of the

triple integral shown in Equation (2):

a egx e(at+x)tand 2

in, =o ie \- iF dzdydx = na’ (tan 0) (2)

where gx =Va’ —x° . Although the volume (and hence mass) of this part

could be found by inspection (it is half of the volume of a cylinder of equal

height), the construction of the triple integral in rectangular coordinates will

be useful for center of mass calculations.

The center of mass of each part 1s given by the first moment divided

by the mass of the part. The calculation must be done for each of the

coordinate axes. The cylinder wedge moment relative to the xy plane (the z-

axis) 1S given by Equation (3):

Meio Mal ee dzdydx => Sra’ (tan 0) . (3)

Washington Academy of Sciences

Although not needed for the final calculations, it is of interest to

calculate the coordinates of the centers of mass of the wedge. Dividing Mw)

by the mass m1 yields the z-coordinate given by Equation (4):

ae => tan@ . (4)

The moment in the yz-plane (parallel to the x-axis) is given by

Equation (5):

a eg e(atx)tand WO

M,., = ol ib (i xdzdydx = vidi tan 0. (5)

Dividing this result by mi yields the x-coordinate of the center of

mass of this part given by Equation (6):

x, = re (6)

(This result seems counterintuitive; it says that the center of mass 1n the x

direction does not depend on tip angle @ This implies that as @ increases, the

mass in the wedge increases in the same proportion, so the @dependences

cancel each other out).

The moment in the xz-plane (parallel to the y-axis) is zero in all of

these calculations due to the symmetry in this plane.

The calculation of the center of mass for the entire filled container

will result in different coordinates from these, based on the sum of moments

of each part.

Part 2 — the liquid cylinder

The mass in the liquid cylinder is derived from the geometry of a

right circular cylinder, but its height is reduced by an amount depending on

the tip angle @, so the resulting mass is given by Equation (7):

m, = Oma’ ( j—atan@) (7)

The moment Myy2 in the z-axis direction 1s calculated by the triple

integral shown in Equation (8):

Spring 2018

j-atan@ pa eqy IE: 7 ; 2

My.=6[, [| 2dxdydz = —da° (j—atand) (8)

where gy =,/a’ —y’. The moments M)z2 and Mx-2 are zero by symmetry.

Dividing Myy2 by m2 yields the z-coordinate of the center of mass of

this part as Equation (9):

+ (7atan 8). (9)

25)

Part 3 - Container walls

The container’s cylindrical side is assumed to be thin compared to

the radius a, so the wall volume is equivalent to the area times thickness /.

Then the mass of the wall is given by Equation (10):

m, = 2 p7aht. (10)

By inspection it is seen that the center of mass of the cylindrical wall

is at h/2, so the moment in the xy-plane 1s given by Equation (11):

y3 iy M3: nr)

The moments in the other two planes are zero by symmetry.

Part 4 — Container base

The base is a circular disk with mass given by Equation (12):

mM, = pra t. (2)

Since the base is centered on the origin of coordinates, the moments

of the base are zero in all three planes.

Total moments and center of mass

The center of mass of a collection of objects is given by the sum of

moments divided by the total mass. This calculation must be done separately

for each of the three coordinates. The total mass of the four parts is given by

Equation (13):

Washington Academy of Sciences

m=m, +m, +m, +m, = oma’ tan 6+ ona’ ( j —atan@)+2praht + pra’.

(13)

For the x-coordinate of the center of mass, we have Equation (14):

Es, Gumi SO SS ee 8 el

m 4| dia’ tan @+a° dr j—atan@)+a° apt + 2ahmpt |

since the three other moments in the yz-plane are zero due to symmetry.

The z-coordinate of the center of mass is more complicated, since

three of the parts have non-zero moments. It is given by Equation (15):

3) 2 ae 2 3

he ee Oma’ (tan@) + ; da (j-atan@) + pxah't ees

"mma tan@+ a’ on( j—atan@)+a°mpt + 2ahnpt

Finally, due to symmetry, ym = 0.

Critical tipping angle

It is now possible to calculate the critical tipping angle & using the

calculated coordinates of the center of mass shown by Equation (16):

lod

0, = 7 ~ arctan —"—. (16)

Z C—O

Note that because the liquid in the container moves as @ changes, the

values of xm and zm are functions of @ Hence Equation (16) does not give a

unique solution for the critical angle. Therefore an iterative procedure must

be used to solve for the critical tipping angle. An initial guess for @ 1s

inserted into the equations for xm and zm, and Equation (16) is calculated.

Based on this answer, a closer estimate is made, and the calculation is

repeated until the desired degree of tolerance is achieved. (Of course, this

process could be automated).

Spring 2018

Table 1 shows an example of iterated results. The test vessel was a 3-liter

polyethylene pitcher with a = 7.75 cm, j = 18, h= 25, 6=1, p= 1.

38.4

38.41

Table 1. Example of iterated results showing

convergence to .01 degree within 10 iterations.

a ee eo:

Stability of a cooking system may be defined as its closeness to the critical

angle & when a large full container of water 1s placed on the cooking surface.

Generalizations

The basic method of calculating stability for a container could be

generalized in several ways, for example:

e Many vessels are not right circular cylinders but are rounded or

tapered in shape. The triple integral method could be extended to any

shape that is a body of revolution.

e The method could be extended to the case where the liquid level cuts

the flat bottom of the container. The calculation for the centroid is

much more complicated in this case, but it has been done [8] and this

would provide a solution for large tipping angles.

Washington Academy of Sciences

Conclusion

Evidence from the field indicates that one of the most common burn

hazards in the world is the instability of cooking pots and/or cookstoves.

This article has reviewed the calculation for stability of a cylindrical

container as a way of quantifying what “instability” means, or when the

combination of a vessel and a cookstove may be “top heavy”. Stability of a

particular cooking system may be assessed by measuring the critical angle

when a large container of (cold) water is placed on the cookstove. Designers

of cookstoves can reduce the risk of this hazard by including a wide base, a

wide pot holder, and/or a skirt around the cooking pot, and by increasing the

number of pot supports, increasing the effective contact radius.

Acknowledgements

This problem was first posed to the author by Crispin Pemberton-Pigott, a

Canadian manager of global field programs for cookstoves. Thanks also are

due to Stephen Wolfram, who distributed a free version of Mathematica for

the Raspberry Pi computer, which was used to check some of the

calculations here.

References

[1] World Health Organization, Burns Fact sheet,

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs365/en/ [accessed

4/3/2018].

[2] World Health Organization, A WHO plan for burn prevention and care.

http://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/97852 [accessed 4/3/2018].

[3] ISO 19867-1:2018, Clean cookstoves and clean cooking solutions —

Harmonized laboratory test protocols — Part 1: Standard test sequence

for emission and performance, safety and durability.

https://www.iso.org/committee/485797 1/x/catalogue/ [accessed

4/3/2018]

[4] ISO/CD 19869, Clean cookstoves and clean cooking solutions -

Guidance on field testing methods for cookstoves,

https://www.iso.org/standard/66521.html [accessed 4/3/2018]

Spring 2018

[5] Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves,

http://cleancookstoves.org/research-and-evaluation/ [accessed

4/3/2018]

[6] D. Stall, et al., Clean Burning Biomass Cookstoves,

http://www.aprovecho.org [accessed 4/3/2018]

[7] Wolfram, S. Tipping point of a cylinder,

http://demonstrations. wolfram.com/TippingPointOfA Cylinder/

[accessed 2/9/2018]

[8] Wolfram, S. Cylindrical wedge.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/CylindricalWedge.html [accessed

4/3/2018]

Bio

Paul Arveson is Director of Research for Solar Household Energy, Inc., a

nonprofit organization based in Washington, DC. His address: 6902

Breezewood Menace: Rockville, MD 20852. Email

paularveson@gmail.com . He is a retired physicist, and is currently serving

on the board of the Washington Academy of Sciences.

Washington Academy of Sciences

EL BAHR: A PROSPECTIVE IMPACT CRATER

Antonio Paris,

St. Petersburg College

Osama M. Shalabiea, Ahmd Madani, Mohamen El Sharkawi

Cairo University

Evan Davies,

The Explorers Club

ABSTRACT

This preliminary investigation addresses the discovery of an

unidentified crater located south of the Sahara Desert between Qaret Had

El Bahr and Qaret El Allafa, Egypt. The unidentified crater (hereafter

tentatively named El Bahr Crater) was discovered during a terrain analysis

of the Sahara Desert. El Bahr Crater, which is located at 28°40’20”N and

29°15°25”E (Southwest Al-Jiza Giza), is approximately 327 meters across,

has a rim with a circumference of approximately 1,027 meters, and

occupies a surface area of approximately 83,981 square meters.

Preliminary spectral and topographic analysis reveal features characteristic

of an impact crater produced by a hypervelocity event of extraterrestrial

origin, including a bowl-shaped rim and a crater wall. No proximal and/or

distal ejecta, however, are visible from Landsat imagery. Moreover, the

geomorphic features, along with the fact that the El Bahr basalts are known

to be rich in orthopyroxene while the surrounding basalts are not, imply an

impact as the most plausible explanation. The El Bahr Crater is not indexed

in the Earth Impact Database, and an analysis of impact structures in

Africa did not identify it as either a confirmed, proposed or disproved

impact crater. In collaboration with the University of Cairo, therefore, an

expedition has been organized to conduct an in-situ investigation of El

Bahr Crater, to ascertain if planar formations, shatter cones, and shock

metamorphic and/or other meteoritic properties are present.

AREA OF INTEREST

THE WESTERN DESERT OF EGYPT (WDE) has long been targeted by

geomorphologists worldwide because of its well-exposed lithology as well

as a terrain and climate that predispose this region to remote sensing studies.

Although many of the circular features present there have attracted

scientific attention as potential impact craters, further study has determined

that most of them were formed as a result of volcanic activity. The most

recently verified impact crater was discovered in 2010 by a joint Egyptian-

Italian team working in the extreme southern part of Egypt, east of Gebel

Spring 2018

Oweinat near Gebel Kamil. The team was able to distinguish the

minerology of the igneous oblate structures from those formed as a result of

a potential impact. The Kamil Crater (22°01'06"N, 26°05'15"E) is 45 meters

in diameter, and geologically the area is Cretaceous sedimentary in ori gin.!

The discovery of Kamil Crater not only positively confirmed the presence

of an impact crater in the WDE but also led to further geological interest in

the region, resulting in turn in the discovery of El Bahr Crater.

In the northern sector of the WDE, fault-induced folds predominate

as oblate plunging anticlines. These geological structures are well exposed

in the El Bahr region, east of the El Gidida iron ore mine. In contrast to the

oblate structures, various circular ring structures exist, in particular El Bahr

basalt. These basaltic rocks differ from the basalts exposed in the floor of

the El Bahartya depression in its mineralogical composition. Ortho-

pyroxene is present in El Bahr basalt but entirely absent from El Bahariya

Basalit-

Another feature provoking interest 1s a prospective impact crater 1n

the El Bahr depression (Fig. 1), located northwest of the El] Bahr basalt

circular structures. This crater, hereafter tentatively described as the El] Bahr

Crater, differs from the oblate structures that are predominant in the WDE.

Analogously, the El Bahr Crater does not belong to the fault-induced folds,

and the El Bahr region lies in carbonate terrain that is extruded by dark

basalt features whereas the El Bahr crater does not.

eS ay 2

7 rn > ss «

—- *”s »

Cw hay

ORE. ee

Figure 1: Location map for El Bahr Crater, Western Desert, Egypt.

Washington Academy of Sciences

PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION OF EL BAHR CRATER:

REMOTE SENSING APPROACH

This investigation considers all possibilities for the formation of E]

Bahr Crater, relying heavily on remote sensing analysis of Landsat data.

Generally, the El Bahr region is dominated by carbonate rocks of the

Qazzun and El Hamra Formations that were cut by basaltic volcanism. The

El Bahr region was affected by Cretaceous and Miocene tectonics. The

region, moreover, consists of a variety of sand dunes and sheets induced by

northwest winds, and the two foremost structural elements recorded suggest

that the region is composed of faults and folds. Topographically, the El Bahr

Crater is located NNW along a series of strike-slip faults and folds (Fig. 2).

However, it is circular-shaped and not comparably elongated like the folds

in the region of interest (Fig. 2), further indicating that this crater was

formed later than the fault/fold morphology in the region.

orf ve gene ae “J scale: 6KM across |

Figure 2: Interpreted satellite imagery shows the circular shape of El

Bahr Crater.

Spring 2018

The three competing hypotheses that could explain the formation of

El Bahr Crater are a man-made structural event (i.e., nuclear and/or high-

power explosive test), volcanism, or a hypervelocity event extraterrestrial

in origin (i.e., a meteor). The first hypothesis can be eliminated. An

inspection of the morphology of El Bahr Crater from space using Landsat

imagery and an examination of historical archives of the region rule out the

possibility that a nuclear and/or high-power explosive test occurred in the

El Bahr region. To test the remaining two hypotheses, a comparison of

spectral signatures between the impact crater Kamil and El Bahr Crater was

conducted. This comparison was completed through the use of data from

Landsat-7’s Enhanced Thematic Mapper Plus (ETM+) and digital image

processing using Environment for Visualizing Images (ENVI) software.

Numerous publications have described the usefulness and

sensitivity of 3/1 band ratio spectral analysis of iron mineral mapping.

Accordingly, the band ratio discrimination technique was used to compare

spectral signatures between the impact crater Kamil and E] Bahr Crater.

Fig. 3 shows the laboratory spectral curves of iron oxide minerals that were

downloaded from the USGS Spectral Library website.’ Hunt and Salisbury

(1970) concluded that iron minerals have low flat spectral reflectance.* The

spectral curve of magnetite shows a very weak broad absorption feature

around | um, whereas spectral curves of hematite and goethite show two

main absorption features around 0.6 um and 0.9 um.

& Spectral Library Plots

File Edit Options Plot Function Help

Figure. 3: Spectral curves of hematite, goethite and magnetite minerals

Washington Academy of Sciences

Figures 4a and 4b display 3/1 band ratio images for Kamil and El

Bahr Craters, respectively. When the images are compared, Kamil Crater

displays a darker signature whereas the floor and rim of El Bahr Crater

exhibit bright and gray image signatures. A dark image signature, however,

is recorded externally along the northern and southern rims of El Bahr

Crater.

9 =1 Zoom [4x] - Oo x

ae, 5

. i PY =] = "i: =

Figure. 4: 3/1 band ratio images for: a) Kamil Crater b) El Bahr Crater.

Figures 5 and 6 display the spectral values of 3/1 band ratio images

for Kamil and El Bahr Craters, respectively. An inspection of these values

revealed that (1) Kamil Crater has low value compared with the immediate

surroundings and (2) the floor and rim of El Bahr Crater have high and

moderate values. The only low values at El Bahr Crater are recorded outside

the crater, in the direction of due north.

Lastly, figure 7 displays two small areas near the El Bahr Crater,

which have the same signature as E] Bahr basalt. One is Area A in the figure

and lies along the northern rim of the El] Bahr Crater. The second, Area B,

lies southwest of the crater and represents El Bahr basalt.

Spring 2018

& #1 Zoom [5x]

Figure 5: 3/1 ratio image spectral values. Note that the Kamil Crater has low values in 3/1

band ratio images compared with its surroundings.

Rim

5G.

Sample

1 Horizontal Profile

North

Figure 6: 3/1 ratio image spectral values for the floor, rim, and outside regions. Note that the floor

and rim of El Bahr Crater have high and moderate values compared with its surroundings. The only

low value is recorded outside the crater.

Washington Academy of Sciences

Figure 7: False color composite band ratios image of El Bahr basalt and the proposed

crater.

PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS

Both the El Bahr basalt and the proposed crater are aligned along

N30W in the El Bahr depression (Fig. 2). South of the proposed crater, all

the El Bahr basalt occurs in circular features that are structurally elongated,

whereas El] Bahr Crater is not. The fault-induced folds in the region are

doubly plunging structures that predate these elongated structures. These

elongated structures conceivably date back to the Oligocene period,

whereas the doubly plunging structures perhaps pertain to the Cretaceous

and subsequent Miocene period. Additionally, two small areas, one to the

southeast and the other along the northern rim of the proposed crater,

display the same signature as the El] Bahr basalt. This could indicate that

basalt is likely to occur in the proposed crater. From overhead imagery,

there is no apparent ejecta blanket in the surrounding landscape, nor is any

such impact indexed in either the Earth Impact Database or the 2014 review

Impact Structures in Africa.> Consequently, a ground truth survey would be

helpful in examining this previously unidentified structure. If confirmed,

Spring 2018

this structure could be well-preserved evidence of one of the more recent

impact events on Earth, and much could be learned from later in-depth

investigations of its mineralogy and structure.

NOTES

' Folco, L., et al. (2011). “Kamil Crater (Egypt): Ground truth for small-scale meteorite

impacts on Earth”, accessed at: https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article-

abstract/39/2/179/130532/kamil-crater-egypt-ground-truth-for-small-

scale?redirectedFrom=fulltext

? El Sharkawi, M.A., Sehim, A., and Madani, A. (2002). “Modes of occurrence of the

basaltic rocks in northern Bahariya Oasis, Western Desert, Egypt”. Annals Geol.

Sury. Egypt, 25, 83-100.

7 USGS Spectroscopy Laboratory, accessed at https://speclab.cr.usgs.gov/spectral-

lib.html#software

* Hunt, G.R. and Salisbury, J.W. (1970). Visible and near-infrared spectra of minerals

and rocks: I. Silicate minerals. Modern Geology, 1, 283-300.

> Wolf, U. and Reimold, C. (2014). “Impact structures in Africa: A review”. Journal of

African Earth Sciences, 93, 57-175.

BIOS

Antonio Paris is the Chief Scientist at the Center for Planetary Science and a

Professor of Astronomy and Earth Science at St. Petersburg College, FL. Prof. Paris is a

graduate of the NASA Mars Education Program at the Mars Space Flight Center, Arizona

State University and the author of Mars: Your Personal 3D Journey to the Red Planet.

Osama M. Shalabiea is a Professor of Astrophysics at Cairo University and the

Director at the Space Science Center in Cairo, Egypt. Prof. Shalabiea’s research is focused

on comets, nebulae and geochemistry.

Ahmed Madani is a Professor of Geology at Cairo University. Prof. Mandani has

published a wide variety of publications on the geology of Western Desert, Egypt,

including the spectroscopy of olivine basalts.

_ Mohamed El-Sharkawi is a Professor of Geology at Cairo University. His

research includes geochemistry, tectonic evolution and petrography in Eastern Desert,

Egypt.

Evan Davies is a geologist and a fellow of at the Royal Geographical Society and

The Explorers Club. Dr. Davies is the author of Emigrating Beyond Earth: Human

Adaptation and Space Colonization and has held a lifelong interest in comets, asteroids,

and impact craters.

Washington Academy of Sciences

Evapotranspiration of Smooth Brome (Bromus

inermis) along Skyline Drive in Rapid City SD

Kailey Anderson and Kelsey Gilcrease

South Dakota School of Mines

Abstract

Smooth bromegrass was used as an indicator of evapotranspiration rates

along Skyline Drive in Rapid City South Dakota. The study was aimed to

compare smooth bromegrass evapotranspiration rates in Rapid City to that

in literature. Findings are meant to be used as a small introduction to what

could lead to large investigations on ecosystems biodiversity. A potometer

was used to collect measurements of individual plants. The 2017 sample

selection included seven samples from varying weather conditions, two

different states of growth, and many different lengths. Study results

demonstrated that the evapotranspiration (ET) rates of the smooth

bromegrass that was close to the typical ET rates in other plant species.

Introduction

SMOOTH BROMEGRASS is most known as an invasive species to the

Northern Great Plains region. The plant is a native Eurasian species, but with

its ability to survive varying elements it has thrived in almost all the areas it

has reached. The plant was thought to be introduced to this region through

different means of farming and scientific studies (Salesman, 2011). After

introduction, it has become one of the most abundant plant species, in fact,

so abundant that it accounts for a majority of the foliage in the South Dakota

area (Bahm, 2011). This invasive plant not only alters the foliage in the area,

it also attracts or deters certain wildlife from the areas that it inhabits. There

has been growing concern over the years that smooth bromegrass may

reduce biodiversity within the area it inhabits. Six counties in South Dakota

are planning ways to revert the foliage back to its native growth (Bahm,

2011) which may enhance soil quality and provide essential nutrients for the

wildlife. Evapotranspiration (ET) 1s a tool that determines the rate at which

certain plants use water sources that are readily available (USGS, 2016). It

gives rise to quantitative calculations in the soils quality, the region’s

availability to water sources, and the overall plant cycle. Our dataset with

smooth bromegrass provides insight that could lead to further investigation

involving evapotranspiration rates and the viability to support other

organisms.

Spring 2018

Materials and Methods

Collection Methods: The specific sample site was located at the

latitude/longitude of 44°03.777' -103°15.116'. This location is along Skyline

Drive within Rapid City SD. The sample region holds the same ecological

niche that can be found throughout the Black Hills region in South Dakota.

Samples were chosen randomly from a 5’x5’ section of ground and picked

by hand to get as much of the root as possible. Samples were taken once

every week for seven weeks. Weather conditions varied and ranged from

sunny 72°F to snowy 29°F.

Potometer: The rate of ET was determined by use of a potometer.

Potometer/Atmometer S17051-1 by Fischer Science was used in our studies.

It is pictured below in Figure 1. Each week, the system was prepared for a

new sample by submerging it completely in tap water, eliminating any air

within the tube, and then placing the new sample in the plastic adapter. At

this time, the entire contraption could be removed from the water and the top

sealed with parafilm. From this point, the potometer was set aside and the

water level was measured daily until the sample plant was no longer taking

up water. The potometer remained in the laboratory at a constant 71 degrees

Fahrenheit.

Calibrated)

pipette |

Figure 1. Diagram of Potometer Assembly

http://www. biology4friends.org/transpiration-lab.html

Washington Academy of Sciences

Data Analysis: The collected data were organized in Microsoft Excel, and a

t-test was conducted. The results were analyzed to determine the statistical

significance of the evapotranspiration rates of the samples.

Results and Discussion

Our study used a limited number of samples at various

environmental conditions. A t-test was conducted to correlate the length of

the sample plant to the total water uptake. On average the plants in the area

were taking up about 12.0 cm of water with an average length of 36.3cm

(see Table 1). Variability 1s due to the conditions in which sampling was

conducted. Table 2 shows the specifics of each sample taken over the study

period.

Table 1. Correlation of Plant Length to Total Evapotranspiration

Total Water

Length (cm)

Uptake (cm)

Mean 36.32857143 12.01428571

Variance 391.9157143 29.02809524

Observations Vl 7

Pearson Correlation 0.018224184

Hypothesized Mean Difference 0

Df 6

t Stat 3.121060712

P(T<=t) one-tail 0.010278565

t Critical one-tail 1.943180281

P(T<=t) two-tail 0.020557129

t Critical two-tail 2.446911851

Spring 2018

Table 2. Smooth Bromegrass Collection Data

Total

Evapo

transpi

ration

Reading | Reading | Reading

1 (cm)

Length

(cm)

Growth Status

(dormant/new)

[oe pa

le ee

Our results were comparable to other readings of typical

evapotranspiration rates. The smooth bromegrass in the Skyline Drive area

is very similar to other plant species. One study, conducted in Nevada,

showed an annual ET of 10.02 to 12.77 inches (Moreo, 2007). Although they

were not studying smooth bromegrass, their results were typical of most

plants in the dryer region of the United States.

Although there have not been many studies focusing on the ET rates

of smooth bromegrass, there have been more studies examining its impact

on the native grasslands across the country. There are some studies showing

invasion and spread of certain species of smooth bromegrass to grassland

communities have negative impact on important native species (Stacy,

2004). Many grasslands across South Dakota and North Dakota are trying to

find ways to remove smooth bromegrass while allowing their native species

to thrive after the removal process. In addition various studies have shown

that the main challenge is the overall invasive tendencies of the smooth

bromegrass. Since it competes with the native species and reduces

biodiversity leading to major issues to our ecosystem. The negative impact

on wildlife could be because smooth bromegrass lacks the rigidity to provide

the winter cover necessary for survival (Sedivec, 2010). Most native species

do obtain the rigidity needed to help wildlife thrive in the winter months.

Since smooth bromegrass does not possess the rigidity and ability to provide

winter cover, it can reduce habitat and food for many different species.

Washington Academy of Sciences

Additional research on smooth bromegrass is needed to further study the

possible effects they have on the environments. Although in some areas they

may be beneficial, they can be harmful when they negatively impact the

diversity of the land.

Conclusion

Our study with limited sample size provided information on the ET

rates of smooth bromegrass in a small region along Skyline Drive in Rapid

City South Dakota. The results showed that within the seven samples taken

the smooth bromegrass has ET rates that are typical of most plants in the

region and smooth bromegrass in other regions. However, with additional

studies and a larger sample size taken in a multi-year study, one may be able

to conclude that the measured ET rates could be statistically significant when

compared to native grasses. Depending on the comparison between the

invasive smooth bromegrass and native grasses, one could determine the

impact on wildlife nutrition, and bio-diversity in areas covered in this

invasive plant. Knowledge obtained from these studies will provide critical

information for an integrated approach for preserving our ecosystem.

References

Bahm, Matt A., et al. Restoring Native Plant Communities in Smooth

Brome (Bromus inermis)-Dominated Grasslands. Weed Science

Society of America, 2011.

http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1614/ipsm-d-10-00047.1

Moreo, Michael T., et al. Evapotranspiration rate measurements of

vegetation typical of ground-Water discharge areas in the basin and

range carbonate-Rock aquifer system, White Pine County, Nevada, and

adjacent areas in Nevada and Utah, September 2005-August 2006.

Reston, VA, U.S. Geological Survey, 2007.

Salesman, Jessica B., et al. Smooth Brome (Bromus inermis) in Tallgrass

Prairies: A Review of Control Methods and Future Research

Directions. Ecological Restoration, 2001.

http://er.uwpress.org/content/29/4/374.short

Sedivec, Kevin K. Grasses for the Northern Plains: growth patterns,

forage characteristics and wildlife values. Fargo, ND, NDSU Extension

Service, 2010.

Spring 2018

Bios

Kelsey Gilcrease is an Instructor in the Chemistry and Applied Biological

Sciences Department at South Dakota School of Mines and Technology in

Rapid City, South Dakota. Her primary academic interests are wildlife,

ecology, leporids, landscape ecology, and planning. Kelsey completed her

undergraduate studies in wildlife at University of Minnesota and graduate

degree in Geography, Planning, and Environmental Management at

University of Queensland, Australia.

Kailey Anderson completed her undergraduate studies at South Dakota

School of Mines and Technology with a major in Applied Biological

Sciences, and minors in both Chemistry and Environmental Science. Her

interests include genetics, epidemiology, wildlife, and ecology. She hopes

to continue her academics and build a career 1n research.

Washington Academy of Sciences

1200 New York Avenue

Rm G119

Washington, DC 20005

Please fill in the blanks and send your application to the address above. We will

contact you as soon as your application has been reviewed by the Membership

Committee. Thank you for your interest in the Washington Academy of Sciences.

(Dr. Mrs. Mr. Ms)

Business Address

Home Address

Cell Phone

preferred mailing address Type of membership

Business Home Regular Student

Schools of Higher Education attended

Present Occupation or Professional Position

Please list memberships in scientific societies — include office held

Spring 2018

Instructions to Authors

Deadlines for quarterly submissions are:

Spring — February | Fall — August |

Summer — May | Winter — November |

Draft Manuscripts using a word processing program (such as

MSWord), not PDF. We do not accept PDF manuscripts.

Papers should be 6,000 words or fewer. If there are 7 or more graphics,

reduce the number of words by 500 for each graphic.

Include an abstract of 150-200 words.

Include a two to three sentence bio of the authors.

Graphics must be in greytone, and be easily resizable by the editors to

fit the Journal’s page size. Reference the graphic in the text.

Use endnotes or footnotes. The bibliography may be in a style

considered standard for the discipline or professional field represented

by the paper.

Submit papers as email attachments to the editor or to

wasjournal@washacadsc1.org .

Include the author’s name, affiliation, and contact information —

including postal address. Membership in an Academy-affiliated society

may also be noted. It is not required.

Manuscripts are peer reviewed and become the property of the

Washington Academy of Sciences.

There are no page charges.

Manuscripts can be accepted by any of the Board of Discipline Editors.

Washington Academy of Sciences

oS)

Washington Academy of Sciences

Affiliated Institutions

National Institute for Standards & Technology (NIST)

Meadowlark Botanical Gardens

The John W. Kluge Center of the Library of Congress

Potomac Overlook Regional Park

Koshland Science Museum

American Registry of Pathology

Living Oceans Foundation

National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA)

Spring 2018

Delegates to the Washington Academy of Sciences

Representing Affiliated Scientific Societies

Acoustical Society of America

American/International Association of Dental Research

American Assoc. of Physics Teachers, Chesapeake

Section

American Astronomical Society

American Fisheries Society

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

American Institute of Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration

American Meteorological Society

American Nuclear Society

American Phytopathological Society

American Society for Cybernetics

American Society for Microbiology

American Society of Civil Engineers

American Society of Mechanical Engineers

American Society of Plant Physiology

Anthropological Society of Washington

ASM International

Association for Women in Science

Association for Computing Machinery

Association for Science, Technology, and Innovation

Association of Information Technology Professionals

Biological Society of Washington

Botanical Society of Washington

Capital Area Food Protection Association

Chemical Society of Washington

District of Columbia Institute of Chemists

District of Columbia Psychology Association

Eastern Sociological Society

Electrochemical Society

Entomological Society of Washington

Geological Society of Washington

Historical Society of Washington DC

Human Factors and Ergonomics Society

(continued on next page)

Paul Arveson

J. Terrell Hoffeld

Frank R. Haig, S. J.

Sethanne Howard

Lee Benaka

David W. Brandt

E. Lee Bray

Vacant

Charles Martin

Vacant

Stuart Umpleby

Vacant

Daniel J. Vavrick

Mark Holland

Vacant

Toni Marechaux

Jodi Wesemann

Vacant

F. Douglas

Witherspoon

Vacant

Chris Puttock

Keith Lempel

Vacant

Ronald W.

Mandersheid

Vacant

Jurate Landwehr

Vacant

Gerald Krueger

Washington Academy of Sciences

Delegates to the Washington Academy of Sciences

Representing Affiliated Scientific Societies

(continued from previous page)

Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Washington

Section

Institute of Food Technologies, Washington DC Section

Institute of Industrial Engineers, National Capital Chapter

International Association for Dental Research, American

Section

International Society for the Systems Sciences

International Society of Automation, Baltimore Washington

Section

Instrument Society of America

Marine Technology Society

Maryland Native Plant Society

Mathematical Association of America, Maryland-District of

Columbia- Virginia Section

Medical Society of the District of Columbia

National Capital Area Skeptics

National Capital Astronomers

National Geographic Society

Optical Society of America, National Capital Section

Pest Science Society of America

Philosophical Society of Washington

Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine

Society of American Foresters, National Capital Society

Society of American Military Engineers, Washington DC

Post

Society of Manufacturing Engineers, Washington DC

Chapter

Society of Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, Inc.,

Washington DC Section

Soil and Water Conservation Society, National Capital

Chapter

Technology Transfer Society, Washington Area Chapter

Virginia Native Plant Society, Potowmack Chapter

Washington DC Chapter of the Institute for Operations

Research and the Management Sciences (WINFORMS)

Washington Evolutionary Systems Society

Washington History of Science Club

Washington Paint Technology Group

Washington Society of Engineers

Washington Society for the History of Medicine

Washington Statistical Society

World Future Society, National Capital Region Chapter

Richard Hill

Taylor Wallace

Neal F. Schmeidler

Christopher Fox

Vacant

Richard

Sommerfield

Hank Hegner

Jake Sobin

Vacant

John Hamman

Julian Craig

Vacant

Jay H. Miller

Vacant

Jim Heaney

Vacant

Larry S. Millstein

Vacant

Marilyn Buford

Vacant

BE. Lee Bray

Erika Larsen

Richard Leshuk

Alan Ford

Meagan Pitluck-

Schmitt

Vacant

Albert G. Gluckman

Vacant

Alvin Reiner

Alain Touwaide

Michael P. Cohen

Jim Honig