Congratulations, Ken. Truth might eventually win out, but what an incredible
and
unnecessary waste of time, money, and ill-will in the interim. And despite
Brent's $182M misstep, he's still at it, this time advocating carbonic
anhydrase
as the planet's (and venture capital's?) savior. Service's article here:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6095/676.full
As he points out, CA is a very effective catalyst for greatly accelerating CO2
reactions, but if CO2 reactions with bases (to form (bi)carbonates) is the
game,
one still needs to supply a mole of base per mole of CO2 (roughly 2 moles base
if one wants to make carbonate). Thus, as in the Calera debacle, supplying a
large quantity of cheap chemical base is still the deciding factor re cost
effective CO2 mitigation, regardless of how fast you can do the reaction.
Certainly there are "free" sources of industrial waste base, but these have
very
limited size/capacity relative to CO2 emissions. The obvious base source re
capacity, cost, and proven global effectiveness are carbonate and silicate
minerals via weathering reactions. CA applications here would be welcome, yet
the idea of consuming base minerals rather than making them ("pavement")
apparently still continues to elude the professor. Hopefully, this will be his
next epiphany, with continuing generous coverage by Science.
In the meantime there is at least one point on which Brent and I can agree:
making concentrated CO2 from dilute sources is the last thing we should be
doing, esp re CDR, as clearly demonstrated by Socolow et al. and House et al.
(and nature).
For me Calera was a painful reminder that well-funded hype, salesmanship, and
wishful thinking can, at least for a while, override common sense and reality.
While we might be able to survive/tolerate such behavior in financial markets
(stay tuned), we can ill-afford such wasteful diversions when it comes to
preserving planet habitability. More and better scientific pier review and
objectivity is needed in allocating what resources and time we have remaining
to
address the CO2 problem.
Regards,
Greg
________________________________
From: Ken Caldeira <[email protected]>
To: geoengineering <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; John O'Donnell
<[email protected]>
Sent: Thu, August 9, 2012 8:20:45 PM
Subject: [geo] Re: Calera -- fooling schoolchildren?
I am sure that some of you recall this discussion about Calera a few years ago.
Brent Constantz sent some choice words my way, such as:
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 6:09 AM, Brent Constantz <[email protected]> wrote:
Your work work with Rau has been deemed as simply incorrect by all credible
members of the scientific community... ! If anyone has attempted to mislead the
public about the significance of their work with regarding CO2 capture, its you
and your partner Greg Rau. ... I have not been able to find any qualified
individual, and I have tried, who finds your work credible. Based on this
thinly
covered, transparent attempt to disguise a need to get information for a greedy
hope of a royalty stream as a concern for schoolchildren, I would question your
personal imtegrity, and tell you Callera wants nothing to do with you, your
bogus science, or you partner Greg!
In today's Science magazine, the following text appeared in a piece by Robert
F.
Service:
Some critics argued that the company was
too secretive about its process, and
that something else must be going on for the
chemistry to work. One outspoken critic was
Ken Caldeira, a climate scientist at the Carnegie
Institution for Science at Stanford University.
Caldeira argued that getting calcium
and magnesium ions to bind with CO2
to precipitate out of water isn’t easy. ...
Caldeira was right. It turned out Calera
engineers were adding sodium hydroxide or
other strong bases to their seawater to make
it more alkaline, driving the pH as high as
12 or 13.
Sometimes, truth does out in the end.
_______________
Ken Caldeira
Carnegie Institution for Science
Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704
7212 [email protected]http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab
@kencaldeira
Our YouTube videos:
Climate change and the transition from coal to low-carbon electricity: Ken
Caldeira
Crop yields in a geoengineered climate: Dr. Julia Pongratz
More videos
On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 6:09 AM, Brent Constantz <[email protected]> wrote:
Mr. Caleira,
>
>
>In response to this and your previous angry e-mails, Calera Corporation has
>the
>following response. Since you purpose is to determine whether or not any of
>the
>processes we use infringe the Caleira and Rau patent which Calera decided not
>license, it seems unethical to imply you care about scoop children's education
>or you have some higher purpose. We did not license your patent because we and
>our Scientific Advisor's found your work to be illconceived and lack
>credibility. Our board of advisors, who include the most well respected
>members
>of the carbonate community fully vetted the issues you raise a long time ago.
>Your work work with Rau has been deemed as simply incorrect by all credible
>members of the scientific community, evidenced by the fact that you have found
>no organization willing to license it! If anyone has attempted to mislead the
>public about the significance of their work with regarding CO2 capture, its
>you
>and your partner Greg Rau. Greg has also applied undue pressure attempting to
>get a job at Calera, but I have not been able to find any qualified
>individual,
>and I have tried, who finds your work credible. Based on this thinly covered,
>transparent attempt to disguise a need to get information for a greedy hope of
>a
>royalty stream as a concern for schoolchildren, I would question your personal
>imtegrity, and tell you Callera wants nothing to do with you, your bogus
>science, or you partner Greg!
>
>
>Our patents published last year, and your claims that Calera has not made it
>processes public are as bogus as your science.
>
>
>Brent Constantz
>
>Sent from my iPhone with radical intent
>
>On Mar 23, 2009, at 1:29 AM, Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>It is well known that the dissolution of carbonate minerals in the ocean
>causes
>CO2 to be transferred from the atmosphere to the ocean through a process
>characterized by the net reaction
>>
>>(1) CO2 + H2O + CaCO3 --> Ca2+ + 2HCO3-
>>
>>A number of authors have discussed ways to accelerate these reactions to
>>store
>>carbon in the ocean, neutralize carbon acidity, or both (e.g. Rau, Kheshgi.
>>Harvey, etc). The idea of diminishing atmospheric CO2 content by dissolving
>>carbonate minerals is discussed in the IPCC Special Report on Carbon Capture
>>and
>>Storage which has been reviewed by many people including prominent marine
>>chemists. Reaction (1) is a well established net reaction involving
>>dissolution
>>of carbonate minerals in the ocean.
>>
>>It is also well known that the formation of carbonate minerals from seawater,
>>such as in the formation of coral skeletons, drives a flux of CO2 from the
>>ocean
>>to the atmosphere, essentially driving reaction (1) in reverse:
>>
>>(2) Ca2+ + 2HCO3- --> CO2 + H2O + CaCO3
>>
>>Furthermore, precipitating carbonates from seawater tends to lower ocean pH
>>and
>>thus exacerbate the ocean acidification problem.
>>
>>
>>Against this background it is surprising to see the company Calera claiming
>>to
>>sequester carbon dioxide by forming carbonate minerals where the cations are
>>taken from seawater -- trying to drive the above reaction in the opposite
>>direction to what would diminish atmospheric CO2.
>>
>>
>>Calera, in an exhibit at the California Academy of Sciences describing their
>>process (see attachment) claim that the CO2 coming into the carbonate will be
>>fossil fuel derived. One can only surmise that the net reaction, considering
>>both reactor vessel and oceanic parts of this reaction can be characterized
>>as
>>follows
>>
>>(3) CO2 + Ca2+ + 2HCO3- --> CaCO3 + H2O + 2CO2
>>
>>That is, they would drive approximately two CO2 molecules into the atmosphere
>>for each molecule they sequester. The result is that they would increase CO2
>>more than that which would have occurred by venting the power plant directly
>>to
>>the atmosphere.
>>
>>So, from the publicly available information it seems that Calera's process
>>goes
>>in the wrong direction and will tend to increase and not decrease atmospheric
>>CO2 content.
>>
>>Furthermore, when I raised these concerns to Calera, they would not respond
>>openly to my critique, asking me instead to sign a non disclosure agreement.
>>
>>I think it is obvious to every marine geochemist that taking cations from
>>seawater and using them to precipitate carbonate minerals will end up driving
>>CO2 from the ocean to the atmosphere.
>>
>>I call upon the California Academy of Sciences to withdraw the Calera exhibit
>>until such time that Calera demonstrates (i) that its process does not remove
>>cations from the ocean in a way that will ultimately drive a CO2 flux from
>>the
>>ocean to the atmosphere that exceeds the amount of fossil fuel stored in the
>>carbonate mineral and (ii) that its process does not acidify the ocean.
>>
>>I believe that Calera should not represent itself as having an effective
>>carbon
>>sequestration technique unless it responds publicly and clearly with the
>>chemical formulas representing their process, including quantitative
>>information
>>on what they intend to remove from seawater and what they intend to add to
>>seawater.
>>
>>I am not sure whether Calera is ignorant or intentionally misleading, or
>>whether
>>they actually have a basis for their claims. If they do have a basis for
>>their
>>claims they should state them now. If not, the California Academy of Sciences
>>should remove their exhibit from the museum.
>>
>>
>>I believe Calera and the Academy of Sciences are now misinforming
>>schoolchildren, and that is not a good thing to do.
>>
>>Regards,
>>
>>Ken Caldeira
>>
>>___________________________________________________
>>Ken Caldeira
>>
>>Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
>>260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
>>
>>[email protected]; [email protected]
>>http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
>>+1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968
>>
>>
><Calera_Academy_Sciences.jpg>
--
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.
--
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.
