INQUEST.US: Territorial investigations conducted by PETER FEND in collaboration with WWF:).

Seaweed
Defense

 

NY State faces two threats:

– Sea-level rise and unusually severe storms
– Fracking as a source of methane, releasing fossil fuel (which causes global warming),
 and causing geological instability and the potential for irrevocable contamination of our 
water supply.

Both threats come from petroleum drilling companies. It is not fair for us to pay the price.

We in NY State are now living through the costs of fossil-fuel dependence.

If a waterplant-to-gas and electricity industry were established, the absurdity of a Lower Manhattan without power wouldn’t have happened.

Not to mention that the energy would not come from fossil fuels, which release heat into our modern atmosphere that was stored up thousands of years ago.

When you ferment algae for energy, you are harvesting this yearʼs solar energy, which has been temporarily captured by a plant. Since all the energy comes from this yearʼs solar cycle, it does not add to the heat load of the planet.This is why algae fermentation does not contribute to global warming.

Right now, given the legacy of Katrina, Irene and Sandy, we can expect another sea-rise disaster next Fall. Shall we expect the city to be shut down for weeks once every year?

The choice is clear: act now on the recommendations of nationally prominent scientists in now the world’s top two economies to have an electricity and methane for NY city, NY State and their neighbors by Summer 2013. Thus, we can also pre-empt the danger from fracking. China and the US are No. 2 and 1 in shale gas reserves. Could it be that, in following the recommendations of China and US scientists from over a generation ago, those shale gas reserves could end up not being drilled?

1982

prominent scientists from throughout the U.S. and China conferred in Stony Brook, NY under sponsorship of the NY State Sea GrantInstitute, on an engineering/science collaboration to effect large-scale seaweed and seagrass industry to yield methane, and from that, electricity.They recommended a $10B investment. This did not happen.

1997

Jamaica Bay proposal seen as out-of-bounds by Public Art Fund

2004

Jamaica Bay proposal seen as publishable only by an oceanography PhD, in scientific journals

2012

Jamaica Bay proposal seen as approachable only by academically-credentialed people, e.g., landscape architect or scientist; but no action on larger scale; meantime, huge sums allotted for buerocratic action: intended expenditure of $115 million by the City of New York (Mayor Bloomberg) and of $500 milllion by the US National Park Service, for untested efforts to solve the sharp decline of salt marshes and ecology in Jamaica Bay, New York.

This would include proposals for cutting a channel past the runway extension at JFK airport, as aired by the US Army Corps of Engineers.But the same proposal for cutting a channel, and having additional restoration of ecology, had been made in 1997 to the Public Arts Fund. They said such a proposal was way out of bounds for them, even if it’s based on earth art and it’s logic. What if they had taken the proposal seriously, at least enough to refer it to someone else?

Then — “Super Storm” Sandy

Just after storm, Jamaica Bay solutions exhibited and seen/considered only by fringe of art world.

We have one year to get ready for the next storm

AFTER SANDY, WHAT TO DO NEXT, WITHIN TWELVE MONTHS

I proposed something very substantial.

 

LOCAL GAS, MADE FROM PLANTS IN THE WATER

I proposed replacing the fuel base, i.e. fossil hydrocarbons, that seem to be the main cause of the disaster,and I propose organic dredging to materially reduce the risk of a surge onto the shore.

I also proposed giving people plenty of meaningful work.
I call it

SEAWEED DEFENSE

It’s a production of methane gas, a clean-burning fuel, from the excess nutrients in the seawater, including Jamaica Bay. And it’s the use of seaweed to buffer turbulence.

We did this in the physical context of a daily flow of seawater against the shores there, coming from the Labrador Current and its sources in Greenland, Hudson’s Bay and the Great Lakes.



The submission was not selected for the PS 1display.

This is bad news.

I think now that we should have had all the works on the wall [but how could we?], and therefore had proper lighting.

Or maybe also, some of the thinking was too “big.”  That view comes to mind with the apparently too-controversial nature of the image of the Labrador Current, incorporating about a quarter of North America in one district of administration.

I’m showing how Jamaica Bay, in a large, excavated bay next to the airport, could yield marine algae from which can be produced, biomethane.

Right now, I am believing that the freshwater inflow into the Bay in Indian times, or even in the mid-19th century, was MUCH less than now. Our model shows that with the blockage of what remains of main inflow-outflow channels, there cannot be proper inflow of salt water.

I think we should emphasize BOTH Laminaria or other macroalgae AND osyters or similar animals.  We could also argue for frequent removal of the vegetation and for removal of oysters much less, for ecological reasons.

JAMAICA BAY CIRCULATION STRUCTURES


The model of Jamaica Bay, shows the need for a cut at the unused runway extension. As the blocked water circulation stands now, with an inactive runway, it may be a defense design for airport (national) security.

Any project we do is meant to restore the ecological system. no visions are sought.

In effect, Jamaica Bay is shrouded in mystery and those who can break through the shroud can build.

I am not sure that is us. More likely, it’s someone with underworld connections. But we can try.