Albert: 1. Thanks for this information on Bayer. Googling I found a bit more at http://www.chemicals-technology.com/projects/bayer-co2-plastics/ which hints that the catalyst somehow involves zinc.
2. As described, I would put this in the carbon neutral, not CDR category. Of course if the CO2 came from biomass combustion, I would count it as CDR then - as in BECS. It is commendable to move from carbon positive towards carbon neutrality, but we should be talking on this list only of carbon negativity. So far, Bayer is not yet close. 3. The difficulty I see in the limited information availableis that the energy needed to productively use the CO2 (from either a fossil or biomass source) may exceed the energy need to simply have liquified the CO2 and inserted it deep underground as in "normal" CCS. If anyone has seen energy computations for this new Bayer use of the output CO2, that data would be helpful to many on this list. Then we can begin to guesstimate the impact on costs. 4. Biochar can be formed either when the input biomass is used for electrical power production or for biofuels. So Biochar proponents are sure to say that the needed CO2 can indeed be obtained as one makes charcoal - and increases (approximately by a factor of 2) the carbon negativity of any Biochar process that involves power production (as would taking the same CO2 and putting it underground ala BECS). 5. I am uncertain of this, but think that the same plastic can probably be made entirely starting with biomass, and to the extent the plastic's lifetime is suitably long (not later combusted), that also would be CDR - and carbon negative. However, there is also a waste disposal issue for waste plastics; it might be better to make bio-disposable plastics - which then again are not carbon negative. 6. The difference in using biomass for Biochar operations is that the Biochar (necessarily the char must be placed in the ground for soil augmentation to be called Biochar; placing char in an unused mine is not to be called Biochar) provides ongoing annual benefits. I am unaware of any other approach besides Biochar that claims annual carbon negative benefits. In the Amazon today, such century-old soils are 2-3 times more productive than adjacent non char-amended soils.(and worth 5-6 times as much to the land-owner - while eliminating the claimed food-energy conflict). The Biochar also has continuing (maybe equal) value in modifying the nitrogen cycle (hundreds of times more climate serious than CO2). There are also claimed annual benefits with water and methane control.. 7. I have yet to see an analysis that credibly counts all of these out-year Biochar values - none(?) of which are captured when using the biomass for making a plastic or sending biomass or bio-CO2 underground. But making plastics from biomass rather than fossil sources is clearly moving in a good direction. And productively using the CO2 from biomass combustion (making char or not) sounds promising. It just depends on the energy needed to do what Bayer (commendably) is attempting. My (very limited) understanding of the Chemistry here says that the zinc(?) catalyst breakthrough may be hugely important, but that the energy requirement is still apt to be quite high. CO2 is a tough molecule to crack - and the secret is presumably in what the CO2 is being turned into (not just creating C and O2). If this is truly a breakthrough in catalyst technology, it also makes Biochar more competitive in the (mostly unappreciated) carbon-negative (CDR) market place. Again - thanks for the news notice. . Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Veli Albert Kallio" <albert_kal...@hotmail.com> To: r...@llnl.gov, rongretlar...@comcast.net Cc: kcalde...@gmail.com, "Geoengineering FIPC" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 6:16:23 AM Subject: RE: [geo] Re: calling all CDRers You do not want to miss out these people from the discussion because they have huge funds and a very successful CRD proposal which is reaching onto testing phases. Basically they propose using renewable energy to capture carbon dioxide and turn it through their catalytic reactor into plastics and thus turn CO2 for uses and lock it out from the atmosphere. http://www.press.bayer.com/baynews/baynews.nsf/id/F7D95A62E946F894C125783A002F2CB5/$File/2011-0096e.rtf?open&mod=19.02.2011_03:30:20 http://www.press.bayer.com/baynews/baynews.nsf/id/Bayer-starts-pilot-plant-for-plastic-manufacturing-with-CO2?Open&ccm=010050&gcsId=dcs6j1z5yh1lo28khlzc57lfb_2t6w http://www.stockholders-newsletter-q3-2010.bayer.com/en/carbon-dioxide.aspx From: r...@llnl.gov To: rongretlar...@comcast.net CC: kcalde...@gmail.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 16:25:11 -0700 Subject: Re: [geo] Re: calling all CDRers Certainly all forms of CDR need to be solicited, but as in most things congressional (and executive for that matter), those that lobbied for the legislation are the ones that make or influence the rules. Knowing who and what was behind S 757 would go a long way in knowing what sort of an “umbrella” we are talking about. But it’s likely not too late to lobby the senators for a broader treatment or for riders or amendments that would make it so, on the remote chance that this goes any where. Speaking of prizes, what happened to the the Virgin Earth Challenge from which my CDR idea was unceremoniously rejected? I think I speak for all CDRer’s when I say I very much look forward to getting a party invitation from the person who wins that one (and supposedly saves the world). Perhaps Mr. Branson can cover the airfare and the carbon offset. -Greg ps as for 5) - seems very unlikely that anyone would submit something whose IP wasn’t already protected. How else could an idea be (safely) reviewed by the Board, unless a blizzard of NDA’s were in place? On the other hand, requiring IP protection will place a (significant) time and money hurdle on those interested in participating with fresh, new ideas. It would seem so much easier to just crank up the global CO2 tax to $100/tonne and let “free” enterprize perform its magic (with oversight). On 4/13/11 2:51 PM, " rongretlar...@comcast.net " < rongretlar...@comcast.net > wrote: Greg, Ken etal 1. Thanks for the cite on the bill. It was not yet up when I checked over the weekend. 2. I wonder if you believe that any form of biomass collection could fit under the bill's stated intent to work with "direct" collection technologies.. I think it a stretch - based on later references to EOR and geothermal. 3. I have to believe also that working with concentrated CO2 sources would also be ruled out in later legal determinations - given the emphasis on "dilute" and the stated 17% is several orders of magnitude from atmospheric.levels of .04% (what it will be before any prizes are available) 4. I think the proposed Section 6 Advisory Board could have some other duties than the few identified. Recommending budget levels and other incentives comes to mind. 5. I am concerned about the emphasis on US retention of patents. We have a world-wide problem here. 6. Like Ken, I still think it better to have a broader scope for this important CDR topic. I do not object to separating CDR and SRM - which are apples and oranges. Ron (Disclosure - I was a AAAS Congressional Fellow [in that program's first year]. I love this sort of discussion. If we want additional Congressional activity in this area [and I do], we are better off with a wide umbrella.) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Rau" < r...@llnl.gov > To: "kcaldeira-gmail" < kcalde...@gmail.com >, "geoengineering" < geoengineering@googlegroups.com > Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 11:13:57 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: calling all CDRers Re: [geo] Re: calling all CDRers The actual bill is here: http://barrasso.senate.gov/public/_files/S_757.pdf My reading is that the performance requirements are to be specified (by the DOE Secretary). I don’t think there are any specifications (yet) on what flavors of CDR might qualify, so head-to-head competition between dilute CO2 ---> inorg/org C vs dilute CO2---> conc CO2 could be a distinct possibility, assuming the bill goes anywhere. On 4/9/11 3:27 PM, "kcaldeira-carnegie.stanford.edu" < kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu > wrote: Agree that it would be much better if politicians would define the problem and allow engineers to find good solutions. Having politicians pick the technological winners is a sure path to disaster. --- Incidentally, I was going to illustrate this point with a famous quote from Van Buren about canals and trains, but this quote is apparently false !! see: http://www.snopes.com/language/document/vanburen.asp --- On a similar note, DOE has largely abandon its hydrogen car effort. Who remembers FreedomCar? http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/freedomcar_partnership.html Do they learn and decide to define the research by the problem it is supposed to solve (e.g., affordable carbon-neutral personal transport)? No, now we have the next technology pick in the transportation sector: http://www.energy.gov/news/documents/1_Million_Electric_Vehicle_Report_Final.pdf On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Ron Larson < rongretlar...@comcast.net > wrote: Alvia, Joshua, etal: I do no know whether the bill will go anywhere. But I think it would have a lot more support if it was all-inclusive. That is, support for all forms of CDR. This is like calling for support of vertical-axis wind machines or CdTe photovoltaics. Picking winners is not what Congress is good at. I can partially understand leaving Biochar out - as that word is still less than 4 years old. But anyone wishing to see CDR pushed would find plenty of Biochar activists (lots of farmers and foresters) with a (probably) small modification of the S. 757 language. Ron Sent from my iPad On Apr 9, 2011, at 2:48 PM, "Alvia Gaskill" < agask...@nc.rr.com > wrote: > It's not part of a combined air/source capture strategy. These are both > considered separately and the emphasis is on ambient air and lower > concentration sources like oil refineries and not mentioned, but applicable, > natural gas where the flue gas level is usually around 3% vs. 10 for CO2. > Since this bill has been around for at least 4 years, it doesn't seem likely > to get anywhere, especially in the next few months. > > http://www.eenews.net/public/eenewspm/2009/11/12/2?page_type=print > > CLIMATE: Barrasso, Bingaman float legislation to promote CO2 capture (E&ENews > PM, 11/12/2009) > Katie Howell, E&E reporter > A key Senate Democrat and a leading Republican critic of cap-and-trade > legislation today introduced a new bill that would award monetary prizes to > researchers who figure out a way to suck carbon dioxide directly from the > air. > > Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Sen. John > Barrasso (R-Wyo.) last week introduced the bill, S. 2744, which would > encourage development of technology to capture CO2 from the atmosphere and > permanently sequester it. Sen. Michael Enzi (R-Wyo.) is a co-sponsor of the > legislation. > > "Our proposal takes a fresh look at climate change," Barrasso said in a > statement. "We want to remove carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere." > > Scientists and engineers are currently scaling up methods to capture CO2 from > industrial sources, like coal-fired power plants. The bill would promote > development of additional technologies to scrub the gases from the air or > from sources, like oil refineries, that have lower concentrations of the > greenhouse gas than power plants and factories. > > "If we could capture carbon dioxide emitted by low-concentration sources, or > even the atmosphere, it would be a major step toward a cleaner energy > future," Bingaman said. "A federal prize to inspire inventive solutions to > this technical challenge could help us get there quicker." > > The bill would establish a federal commission within the Energy Department to > award prizes to scientists and researchers making headway in the field. The > nine commission members, who would be appointed by the president, would be > climate scientists, physicists, chemists, engineers, business managers and > economists. > > Prizes would be awarded to innovators who design technology to mop up CO2 and > permanently store it. The bill does not establish the amount of the awards. > > The bill would allow the United States to share intellectual property rights > with the inventor after the technology is developed. > > "The bill taps into American ingenuity and innovation," Barrasso said. "It > recognizes the need to develop the technological solutions needed to address > climate change. With financial awards, we can encourage the extraordinary > breakthroughs needed to tackle this problem." > > Some researchers are already investigating the problem. Scientists and > engineers from organizations like chemicals giant BASF, glass and ceramics > maker Corning, Columbia University and the University of Calgary in Canada > are all investigating new technologies that would capture CO2 from the air. > > Their ideas are varied and at different stages of development. But most > involve using some sort of material to react with CO2 in the atmosphere and > form a stable solution or mineral. > > Other efforts to award monetary prizes for technology development have also > emerged. Airline entrepreneur Richard Branson and former U.S. Vice President > Al Gore launched the Virgin Earth Challenge in 2007 to offer $25 million to > the first demonstrated design to remove 1 billion metric tons of greenhouse > gases per year from the atmosphere (Greenwire, Feb. 9, 2007). No one has yet > claimed that prize. > > Barrasso introduced similar legislation last session. That bill, S. 2614, > stalled in the Environment and Public Works Committee. > > The new bill has been referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural > Resources, which Bingaman chairs, and an aide said it could move as part of > larger energy and climate legislation in the Senate. > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Josh Horton" < joshuahorton...@gmail.com > > > To: "geoengineering" < geoengineering@googlegroups.com > > Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2011 3:16 > Subject: [geo] Re: calling all CDRers > > > This report gives the impression that the bill is narrowly focused on > conventional point-source post-combustion CCS, but note its title: "A > bill to provide incentives to encourage the development and > implementation of technology to capture carbon dioxide from dilute > sources on a significant scale using direct air capture > technologies." The bill appears to be directed at ambient-air CDR > combined with CCS, which is more encouraging from the standpoint of > climate engineering. Of course, there is tremendous distance from a > bill to a law to implementation to success, so more than a fair amount > of skepticism is in order. > > Josh Horton > joshuahorton...@gmail.com > http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/ > > > > On Apr 8, 3:16 pm, "Rau, Greg" < r...@llnl.gov > wrote: >> CLIMATE: Barrasso, Bingaman reintroduce CCS prize bill (04/08/2011) >> Katie Howell, E&E reporter >> Sens. John Barrasso and Jeff Bingaman yesterday reintroduced their >> bipartisan measure that would award monetary prizes to researchers who >> figure out a way to suck carbon dioxide directly from the air. >> >> Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming, and Bingaman, the New Mexico Democrat >> who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, first >> introduced the carbon capture and storage (CCS) legislation last Congress, >> where it stalled in committee. >> >> But Bingaman in recent weeks has targeted CCS as an area with potential for >> bipartisan cooperation on the committee. Several Republicans, including >> Barrasso, are co-sponsors of CCS legislation he floated last week (E&ENews >> PM, April 1). >> >> And yesterday, Bob Simon, the committee's Democratic chief of staff, said, >> "the whole area of carbon capture and storage is one that is ripe for >> bipartisan cooperation in the Senate." >> >> "Frankly, if we can make sure, if we can demonstrate that you can >> economically capture and store carbon dioxide, you dramatically increase the >> range of technologies you can call clean energy technologies," Simon said >> yesterday at an event in Washington, D.C. >> >> Barrasso and Bingaman's latest bill (S. 757), which is also co-sponsored by >> Wyoming Republican Sen. Mike Enzi, would encourage development of technology >> to capture CO2 from the atmosphere and permanently sequester it by >> establishing a federal commission within the Energy Department to award >> prizes to scientists and researchers making headway in the field. The >> commission members, who would be appointed by the president, would be >> climate scientists, physicists, chemists, engineers, business managers and >> economists. >> >> Prizes would be awarded to innovators who design technology to mop up CO2 >> and permanently store it. >> >> "This bill taps into American ingenuity and innovation," Barrasso said in a >> statement. "This will increase America's energy security by ensuring the >> long-term viability of coal and other sources of traditional energy. Our >> bill provides the technology to eliminate excess carbon in the atmosphere >> without eliminating jobs in our communities." >> >> But despite Bingaman's optimism about moving CCS legislation this Congress, >> he said earlier this week that no decisions had been made about when the >> committee would take up the CCS measures. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com . > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com < > mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en . > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com . > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com < > mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com < mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com > . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
