Hi Andrew, Sam, Oliver - I heartily agree, & think that this is potentially one of the "sleepers" of the geoengineering world - it is also unique in that it is neither CDR nor SRM & would probably be quite safe & thus easily enacted.
I would doubt that you're going after it the right way, though, Sam, in that the kinds of things you have been thinking about always demand passing air - which is way too energy-intensive. And Oliver, clearly one doesn't want to be intentionally making any new GHGs while trying to fix the GHG problem, unless it's making something pretty damn destructive of GHGs later on!..... Andrew, I'm not sure what you meant by "leveraging existing processes", but I had an idea in this general line several years ago, and actually first learned of this group when I saw Mike mentioning to Ken something about it...... In a sense, it is like using the band gap energy used in solar cells, but the energy makes hydroxyl instead.....of course, that's already a well developed idea, and it all started in Japan - it's sometimes called the "Fujishima effect" after Akira Fujishima who started it. It's been used in various forms of environmental remediation for quite some time now. It's all about exploiting the unique photocatalytic properties of TiO2. At this point there has now been lots of research in Japan (and much of it not translated, I've been told), and there are even commercial products called "environmental nano-coatings" and so on. There's a leading TiO2 expert at UVA (John Yates) who I approached about all this, who told me once of visiting Fujishima, and being taken to a place in Tokyo where a whole block of large city buildings have been covered in a TiO2 coating, and studies have shown the NOx, O3, & CO, VOCs and other reactive species are all greatly reduced around there from the surrounding air - with huge % changes, 30% and more. So, my simple idea had been this: if one thinks of the atmospheric OH sink as a drain in which more reactive species selectively go down more easily, raising OH anywhere and letting it act on VOCs etc, should, globally considered, accelerate the methane sink thus lowering the CH4 forcing (and that's behind the "indirect GWP" concept of such species). Since methane is a LLGHG, Sam, it's a waste to spend energy pushing air around - methane is already everywhere. Therefore, an entirely passive approach could be to add a photo- catalytic coating on top of white surfacing. It's a highly synergistic concept, since the TiO2's unique hydrophobic/hydrophilic qualities also make it an albedo booster (keeping white things whiter), by being a self-cleanser of surfaces (TiO2 is used to keep windows cleaner, for ex.) It would be MUCH cheaper than the white paint used for the surfacing, by at least a few orders of magnitude. My guess would be this approach could greatly boost the climate impact of white surfacing projects, and I haven't seen studies exploring this at all yet, although grad students at UVA told me it probably has already been studied in Japan, and I never had good enough data to even make my own rough calculations of what it might yield. Now, then, I mentioned that it's kind of like solar energy, in a sense. Do you know of Graetzel, who started the Graetzel cell? That's a solar cell that's TiO2 based (and could be the "Next Big Thing" for the world, if it turns out well.....i.e., the solar slurry idea). I had once come across a very early paper of his, and think it could lead to something in this area you are all looking at: he was studying the capacity to degrade methane in ambient conditions, & so was studying TiO2 with co-catalysts. He wrote a paper on a molybdenum doped TiO2 that seemed to have a good action on methane at ambient temperature. So this would be more like pulling the methane right down the drain, rather than waiting for the lowered VOCs etc to help the methane go down it. It would demand a LOT of work to both explore various co-catalysts and see what's the best for directly attacking methane, and then to determine which route would be better to pursue - such a targeted catalyst, or a simpler "OH maker" that targets nothing at all, but helps "open the drain." As far as that last goes, another thing: John Yates (the one at UVA), while he right away told me that he "doesn't invent things," and thus had no interest in getting involved directly in my pursuit, did mention a curious thing to me, in a presentation he arranged for me by some of his grad students. The unique properties of TiO2 come from defects in the crystal lattice structure of the molecule. He's the world's leading expert of this, a theoretical chemist who has spent his life perfecting his own construction (a specially dedicated kind of SEM, I think) to look deep inside the TiO2 molecule. One thing he said to me stuck in my mind: it might not be hard, he said, to use nano tech to expand the defect of the O atom, and thus get more OH made through its band gap activation. So, this could make a more productive molecule - either for making solar energy, or, I suppose, for taking junk out of the air and lowering its RF. cheers, Nathan ps - re arctic methane - since this is mild approach, I doubt it would be a big part of dealing with any emergency there, but if it were, it could involve adding such a coating on top of the kind of recycled plastic faux ice-floe idea that I've mentioned before in this group.... I got another UVA chemistry faculty (Lehmann) who has developed perhaps the most sensitive way of reading methane, with dual lasers, interested in helping me run some simple experiments. On Jul 26, 7:32 am, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote: > Creating OH radical is best done by leveraging existing processes. > The radical is too short-lived to be effectively distributed when > produced industrially, and energy costs are also too high. > > The NOx recycling reaction series was chosen by L Zhou et al in their > recent paper, as (in dry air) NOx is persistent and recycles. > > For the paper, > seehttp://www.atm.helsinki.fi/FAAR/reportseries/rs-109/abstracts/Luxi%20... > > Biological processes are able to indirectly create NOx by nitrogen > fixation using symbiotic bacteria in root nodules. The plants can > then be burned to liberate NOx into the atmosphere. The Lupin is one > potential candidate, but other N2 fixers such as clover may also work. > This could additionally perhaps be used as a source of biochar. The > slight complexity is that NOx rains out in wet air, but the plants > need to be grown in wet soil. Haul costs are likely to be a > significant issue, therefore. > > One slightly 'far out' approach is to press ahead with the attempts to > make non-legumes capable of fixing N2 through GM. This would > revolutionize global agriculture, as well as giving a feedstock for > geoengineering - as the N2 fixation process is the chemical > underpinning of protein creation in crops. This isn't fanciful, and > lots of work is already being done. > > An alternative technique with a much more limited scope of application > is the addition of Br2 to create Br radical. This would need to be > done in clean, damp air overlying the oceans. There is an existing > 'hole' in the global OH shield east of Papua New Guinea, where this > technique could be applied.http://eprints.ifm-geomar.de/10069/ It is > one of the authors of this paper who suggested the Br technique to me. > > The downsides of creating NOx, as Zhou et al note, is that the both > NOx itself, and the trop O3, are both toxic and also GHGs in their own > right. It's not a pleasant solution to have to be considering. > > Readers should note the Kyoto controls on NOx, which have a beneficial > effect by potentially reducing forcing, but a negative indirect effect > by reducing OH radical production, which will become more significant > in a low OH, high CH4 atmos. However, it should also be noted that > locally high NOx concentrations are associated with different > chemistry which does not lead to the production of OH and the > consequential breakdown of methane. Therefore, industrial OH > controls, particularly in smoggy cities, are generally beneficial, > whereas in rural areas those same controls may have a positive RF > outcome. > > This is a very interesting field, and one that more assistance and > input is welcomed in. > > A > > On 26 July 2011 10:54, Sam Carana <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Oliver Tickell wrote: > >> Another approach would be to enhance HO hydroxyl in the atmosphere - the > >> main destroyer of methane. I have no idea how to set about doing this. It > >> could be helpful to reduce emissions that utilise existing hydroxyl, such > >> as > >> miscellaneous hydrocarbons. But the chemistry is complex and it is hard to > >> strictly follow through any intervention to its end results! > > > There are a number of methods that seek to reduce methane whilst still > > in the water (microbes, bubbles, covering the water surface with white > > plastic to capture the methane, etc). > > > One problem is that, in many places (including in ESAS), waters are > > shallow and there's little time for microbes to do their work, > > especially when hydrates suddenly start releasing huge amounts of > > methane. > > > Therefore, it's crucial to also look at hydroxyl and I advocate two > > types of feebates to help reduce emissions that compete for hydroxyl: > > 1. Energy feebates (seeking to reduce emissions from power plants and > > help electrify transport); and > > 2. Fees on livestock products to fund biochar, which will reduce > > methane, while encouraging pyrolysis and thus also reduce BC, VOC and > > the like. > >http://knol.google.com/k/sam-carana/the-way-back-to-280-ppm/7y50rvz99... > > > As to enhancing hydroxyl in the arctic, here are some suggestions: > > > - Tri-Air Developments has developed a technology that combines UV > > light with extremely low levels of ozone and mixes it with volatile > > hydrocarbons, to produce hydroxyls. This technology is used in Cirrus3 > > devices that emit hydroxyls in rooms of less than 25m3 up to rooms in > > excess of 500m3 (image below). Perhaps such technology could be used > > at large scale in the Arctic to combat the methane menace. > > > - Another method may be to use UV light for photolysis of hydrogen peroxide. > > > - Using UV light to break down methane in the Arctic could possibly be > > achieved by model airplanes, equipped with LiPo batteries and with > > solar thin film mounted both on top of and underneath the wings. > > Numerous such planes could navigate the Arctic by autopilot in summer, > > when there are high concentrations of hydrogen peroxide and when the > > sun shines 24-hours a day. Flying figure-8 patterns with the wings > > under an angle could optimize capture of sunlight, keeping the planes > > in the air, while using surplus energy to power UV lights. At the end > > of summer, the planes could return home for a check-up and possible > > upgrade of the technology, to be launched again early summer the next > > year. > > >http://knol.google.com/k/the-threat-of-methane-release-from-permafros... > > > Cheers! > > Sam Carana > > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 1:44 PM, John Nissen <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Thanks Oliver. > > >> I'm posting your comments to the geoengineering group with the questions > >> you > >> raise: > > >> 1. Could the CDM be used to fund, or help fund, our pilot project to trial > >> various techniques for tackling the Arctic methane problem? Could it > >> subsequently fund deployment of selected techniques? > > >> 2. Is there any way to enhance HO hydroxyl in the atmosphere? > > >> Cheers, > > >> John > > >> --- > > >> On 25/07/2011 17:52, Oliver Tickell wrote: > > >> Certainly it makes sense to do something about large, concentrated methane > >> emissions where it is realistic to capture the gas and burn it off, or use > >> it for heat / power. > > >> Does the CDM currently provide credits for methane projects of this type? I > >> believe it does for methane from pig farms etc so there is no obvious > >> reason > >> why it should not. > > >> Another approach would be to enhance HO hydroxyl in the atmosphere - the > >> main destroyer of methane. I have no idea how to set about doing this. It > >> could be helpful to reduce emissions that utilise existing hydroxyl, such > >> as > >> miscellaneous hydrocarbons. But the chemistry is complex and it is hard to > >> strictly follow through any intervention to its end results! > > >> Oliver. > > >> -- > >> Oliver Tickell > > >> On 25/07/2011 15:09, Veli Albert Kallio wrote: > > >> I think definitely that we can prevent on-shore methane explosions, and > >> saturated methane laden water pockets that are approaching nucleating > >> point. > > >> There are 3 types of methane leaking: > > >> 1) generic leaking of methane from melting permafrost over large areas that > >> provide widespread methane haze > >> 2) spot type ongoing methane leaking from permaforst or onshore gas fields > >> that are losing their subterranean gas compression due to ruptures. > >> 3) explosive methane eruptions (methane clatrates, Lake Cheko's conical > >> basin gas field failure in Tunguska 1908 as river fell into gas field and > >> drove methane out). > > >> No. 1 you cannot control. No. 2 depends on how big and focused the leaking > >> is, there are vast bubbling spots, in Azerbaijan there are flaming > >> mountains > >> where gas comes out of rocks. These you can control. No. 3 can be > >> controlled > >> by method of Professor Michel Halbwachs. Often methane can be spotted as a > >> very focused leak on sea floor which might be possible to cap. So, I think > >> the idea is valid in certain cases, in other cases it may not be workable. > > >> ________________________________ > >> Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2011 11:28:12 +0100 > >> From: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: Arctic methane workshop, London, 15-16th October CONFIRMED > >> To: [email protected] > > >> John, I think you are on a hiding to nothing trying to trap or destroy the > >> methane. > > >> The reason is simple - the emissions are spread over such a vast area of > >> many millions of sq.km. Even to trap and destroy the methane emissions from > >> 1sq.km would be a fantastically difficult and expensive task. > > >> So you can simplify things by just ruling this one out at the start! > > >> Oliver. > > >> -- > >> Oliver Tickell > > >> On 22/07/2011 18:29, John Nissen wrote: > > >> Dear all, > > >> In case you were not aware, the workshop, which was to have been 3-4th > >> September, is now going to be on 15-16th October. Here is the background > >> and purpose of the workshop... > > >> A group of scientists and engineers (including myself) is deeply concerned > >> about the potential of methane from thawing permafrost in the Arctic to > >> cause irreversible, catastrophic and unsurvivable global warming. Major > >> factors are the unexpectedly rapid retreat of sea ice [1] and the > >> unexpectedly large quantities of carbon which might be emitted as methane > >> [2]. In June 2010 we wrote an open letter to Obama's scientific adviser, > >> Dr > >> John Holdren, suggesting action was urgently needed to address the methane > >> issue [3]. Some sea ice experts, including Professor Peter Wadhams in our > >> group, now reckon the Arctic Ocean will very likely become seasonably ice > >> free this decade if there is no action to cool the Arctic. > > >> Recently Peter Wadhams has drawn my attention to work of Natalia Shakhova > >> with Igor Semiletov on East Siberian Arctic Shelf (ESAS) - particularly > >> concerning the present large emissions of methane and the possibility of > >> release of much larger quantities "at any time". So we have been > >> wondering > >> whether anything can be done quickly to reduce this methane threat. We > >> have been discussing possible action, and plan > > ... > > read more » -- 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.
