Gentlemen,
Speaking of weathering reactions, I draw your attention to a proposal entitled 
"Saving the Planet 2.0" recently submitted by The Planet Doctors to MIT''s/Mike 
MacCracken's Geoengineering contest:
http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/20/planId/1000951#plans%3Dtab%3ADESCRIPTION

Team members, constructive comments, and or just hitting the Support button 
invited:
http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/20/planId/1000951#plans%3Dtab%3ATEAM
http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/20/planId/1000951#plans%3Dtab%3ACOMMENTS

While at the site you should also check out the other interesting ideas offered 
by some of our esteemed colleagues on this list:
http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/20
I note that Eugene's nuclear option has yet to be submitted.

In any case, the contest should be entertaining if not informative and possibly 
productive.  May the best idea win.

Your humble messenger,
Greg


________________________________
From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on 
behalf of Ken Caldeira [[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2013 8:29 AM
To: JohnDuke
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; 
[email protected]
Subject: Re: [geo] Geoengineering: rules needed for climate-altering science - 
International institute for Strategic Studies

The basic point is that carbonate formation exacerbates ocean acidification.

You can write the formula for CaCO3 formation schematically as follows:

CO2 + H2O + Ca2+  --> CaCO3 + 2 H+

More-or-less, you are taking the positive charge on the calcium ions and 
replacing them with protons, which brings down pH.

More important than where the CO2 comes from is where the Ca2+ comes from. If 
it comes from dissolving silicate minerals instead of the ocean, then this can 
be made to work.  Another way of looking at it is to say you need a weathering 
reaction to consume those protons
_______________
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution for Science
Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab  @kencaldeira

Caldeira Lab is hiring postdoctoral researchers.
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_employment.html

Our YouTube videos
The Great Climate Experiment: How far can we push the 
planet?<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce2OWROToAI>
Special AGU lecture: Ocean Aciditication: Adaptive Challenge or Extinction 
Threat?<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pfz2l29aX9c>
More videos<http://www.youtube.com/user/CarnegieGlobEcology/videos>


On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 6:17 AM, JohnDuke 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
But doesn't the question whether CaCO3 formation is a net source or sink of 
atmospheric CO2 depend on where the bicarbonate comes from?

If CO2(aq, recently from atm) + H20 --> H2CO3  --> HCO3- + H+  is the source of 
the HCO3-, as at present in the Southern Ocean, then there is a net sink of one 
carbon. As the equation below requires two bicarbonate ions, 2C from atmosphere 
& 1C returns to atmosphere, there is a net sink of one carbon.

It seems a blanket statement that CaCO3 formation emits CO2 presumes an 
infinite oceanic capacity to hold bicarbonate. Is that true? Doesn't increasing 
bicarbonate eventually degrade the ocean's H+ buffering function?

Some may consider ocean acidification to be a more existential threat than 
greenhouse warming, in the unknown unknown category.


----- Original Message -----
From: Ken Caldeira<mailto:[email protected]>
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> ; 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2013 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: [geo] Geoengineering: rules needed for climate-altering science - 
International institute for Strategic Studies

Russell has his facts right but chemical implications wrong:

The net reaction for the formation of CaCO3 shells can be written:

Ca2+ + 2 HCO3-  ===>  CaCO3 + H2O + CO2

Thus the formation of carbonate minerals from sea water acts as a carbon source 
to the atmosphere, not a sink.

Greg Rau, among others, has proposed trying to run this reaction to the left to 
sequester CO2. This is sometimes known as "Accelerated Carbonate Weathering".

http://crustal.usgs.gov/projects/CO2_sequestration/limestone.html


_______________
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution for Science
Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab  @kencaldeira

Caldeira Lab is hiring postdoctoral researchers.
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_employment.html

Our YouTube videos
The Great Climate Experiment: How far can we push the 
planet?<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce2OWROToAI>
Special AGU lecture: Ocean Aciditication: Adaptive Challenge or Extinction 
Threat?<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pfz2l29aX9c>
More videos<http://www.youtube.com/user/CarnegieGlobEcology/videos>


On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 10:12 AM, Russell Seitz 
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Given the proximity of  so many of ISIS proncipal to Chesapeake Bay, I am 
shocked they have not hit on the opportunity to combine the Beltway's lust to 
regulate with the best features of carbon capture and SRM.

The key to this win-win-win strategem is the humble mollusc Ostrea edulis.

A dozen oysters sequester a hundred grams or more of carbon in their shells, 
and were the daily consumption of a dozen made mandatory, their removal from 
the sea would make room for the sequestration of a hundred grams more. In 
addition, discarding the shells on land  would at once take a bite out of sea 
level rise, and, as ouster shells are pearly white , tend to reduce the albedo 
footprint of those consuming them, especially if they toss them on their 
asphalt coated roofs, parking lots and driveways to reduce the energy toll  and 
radiative forcing burden of the urban heat island effect .

Confident that perfoming the dimensional analysis necessary to persuade 
themselves of the relative worth of this concept will encourage readers to do 
likewise to their own submissions   I remain

Your , etc.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/_KEqoHead7IJ.

To post to this group, send email to 
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]<mailto:geoengineering%[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]<mailto:[email protected]>.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]<mailto:geoengineering%[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.

-- 
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.

Reply via email to