Oliver, Greg etal
This is to support your idea below "... to distribute the rock powder on farm / pasture / forest soils" , which of course is exactly what Biochar (and no other CDR/NET) does. At a recent meeting in Merida, Yucatan of the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER), the joint application of both was mentioned several times - and I believe would go over well in Biochar circles. There is mention already of rock dust in some Biochar publications, but I think only for supplying micronutrients. Can you/anyone suggest preferred minerals that can both supply nutrients and sequester slowly, per your suggestion? I recall somewhere the idea of using the pyrolysis gases from Biochar production for assisting with accelerating mineral carbonation (an alternative or supplement to the spent gases from Biochar and electric power production being sequestered ala BECCS). Those who are looking for non-fossil high temperatures for processing rock dust will find Biochar proponents anxious to talk on the production as well as the application side of these minerals. For Greg Rau: Can you give a little more information (author, date) on the Wiley cite given below; I could not make it work. At the Wiley site I did find a large number of what are likely similar sequestration articles - and a few were free and helpful. Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Oliver Tickell" <oliver.tick...@kyoto2.org> To: "geoengineering" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 1:56:13 PM Subject: [geo] Re: Monbiot Claims SAI "already tested ... with catastrophic results" This appears to be one of many ideas to mineralise CO2 using Mg silicate rock using an industrial reaction process. The question has to be, is this necessary or cost effective when there is a low tech, low cost alternative - to distribute the rock powder on farm / pasture / forest soils and in intertidal zones? And then let nature take its course. Depending on the rock composition, this can also help remineralise depleted soils, much as volcanic ash so often does, and raise fertility. The main argument used in favour of the industrial approach is that the natural weathering takes place very slowly, but this is incorrect. Biological processes, as noted by Lovelock in 1981 (http://www.jameslovelock.org/page29.html) accelerate the chemistry of weathering, as also does agitation / abrasion from wave action. Oliver Tickell On Sep 23, 9:18 pm, "Rau, Greg" <r...@llnl.gov> wrote: > Speaking of mineral carbonation, check > out:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2011.00368.x/a... > ;jsessionid=15DD453CB61D6B1B218D916F13507A2E.d01t01 > > -Greg > > On 9/23/11 4:40 AM, "Oliver Tickell" <oliver.tick...@kyoto2.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Monbiot's real mistake here is to swallow the conclusion of the Royal > > Society report on the subject, whole and undigested, without critical > > scrutiny or attention to other sources of information - in particular > > as regards the weathering of magnesium silicate (not enough Ca > > silicate to bother with): > > > Monbiot reports: "Dumping lime or calcium or magnesium silicates into > > the sea, where they react with carbon dioxide. Fairly safe. Effective. > > Expensive. Has > > the advantage of potentially reversing ocean acidification, but the > > amount of quarrying required to produce enough ground-up rock is > > likely to be prohibitive. " > > > A) where does he get the idea that it's about dumping it in the sea? > > It is about spreading the rock powder on land, and in intertidal > > zones. > > B) So it's "fairly safe". Why only "fairly"? This is just to > > accelerate a natural process that is going on all the time anyway. > > C) "Expensive" - how much? People who have done the sums > > conservatively estimate $10-15 per tCO2. Making it one of the cheapest > > options around. > > D) It will only "potentially" reverse ocean acidification. Well, > > insofar as the science of chemistry "potentially" applies. He seems to > > be implying that maybe chemistry is "potentially" all wrong. George, > > tell us more! > > D) The amount of quarry is "likely to be prohibitive" - is it? Has he > > done the sums? Has he asked anyone who has done the sums? Or is this > > just his uniformed guess? For a start there are Gt of already mined > > rock that can be used, in mine tailings around the world. From then > > on, roughly 1t of rock sequesters 1t of CO2. So you need to mine an > > amount of rock comparable to the amount of fossil fuel we are burning. > > If it's not "prohibitive" to mine the coal, why's it "prohibitive" to > > mine the rock? > > > Oliver Tickell. -- 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.
