1. OK. I will try to remember the proper arrangements of letters, but forgive me if I lapse into clarity. 2. As a bio oriented engineer I am not clear on how Lackner's cold process overcomes the weak driving force of extraction of CO2 from ambient air. 3. As a steam and train fan, I love this idea! But it make sense after the coal is gone. Cobs are a lousy fuel. 4. Yes and this is the scenario analyzed in our paper.
= Stuart = Stuart E. Strand 167 Wilcox Hall, Box 352700, Univ. Washington, Seattle, WA 98195 voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-3836 skype: stuartestrand http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/ Using only muscle power, who is the fastest person in the world? Flying start, 200 m 82.3 mph! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_Whittingham Hour http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hour_record 55 miles, upside down, backwards, and head first! -----Original Message----- From: Andrew Lockley [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 5:45 PM To: Stuart Strand Cc: Eugene I. Gordon; geoengineering; James Lovelock; James Hansen; [email protected] Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Crop residue ocean permanent sequestration 1 - Biomass Energy Carbon Capture and Storage is usually expressed as 'BECS'. Biomass Carbon Capture and Storage would therefore be BCCS/BCS 2 - Lackner's cold process works for air, so should work just fine for CO2 rich stack emissions 3 - Shipping costs - Why not use steam trains that burn corn cob? 3 - Sinking - why not wrap up in big nylon sacks with rocks in to make them sink. This should discourage bottom-feeders, too. A 2009/1/26 Stuart Strand <[email protected]>: > That is an interesting point. Since liquid CO2 capture from stationary > sources (coal) and sequestration in deep strata must be a part of a > sustainable mix of greenhouse gas control technologies, there may be enough > free CO2 to release. But some current deep injection ideas involve > carbonate mineral formation in basalt. And then there is the leakage > problem. Or we could save some coal. > > > > > > = Stuart = > > > > Stuart E. Strand > > 167 Wilcox Hall, Box 352700, Univ. Washington, Seattle, WA 98195 > > voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-3836 > > skype: stuartestrand > > http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/ > > > > From: Eugene I. Gordon [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 3:31 PM > To: Stuart Strand; [email protected]; 'geoengineering'; 'greenhouse effect' > Cc: 'James Lovelock'; 'James Hansen'; [email protected] > Subject: RE: [geo] Re: Crop residue ocean permanent sequestration > > > > I would argue that any sequestration technique for CO2 should allow its > release back into the atmosphere when needed. Why needed? For sure when the > nominal background level of CO2 in the atmosphere drops to 180 ppm as the > Antarctic cools following the end of the current 20,000 year component of > the Milankovitch cycle. That will take place relatively soon. When the Earth > so cools we will be glad to have enough CO2 stored to put back 100 ppm and > achieve acceptable climate. We should view geoengineering techniques as a > thermostat that works both ways as needed. > > > > One of the elegant aspects of carbon sequestration techniques is that they > do no damage. Capture and storage fits that category. > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
