I think Greg's logic is impeccable. With this call, the US DOE is soliciting proposals to increase, not decrease, CO2 emissions to the atmosphere.
On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 7:24 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear all, > > Generally, if you don't propose within the small box described in the FOA, > your proposal won't rise to the level of "educating" DOE, let alone get > funded. But, if anyone would like to question DOE about the limits of the > "box", I can do so for the group. The questions need to be of the nature > "Might ____ approach be considered for funding?" > > "Questions regarding the *content* of the announcement must be submitted > through the FedConnect portal. You must register with FedConnect to respond > as an interested party to submit questions, and to view responses to > questions. It is recommended that you register as soon after release of > the FOA as possible to have the benefit of all responses. DOE will try > to respond to a question within three (3) business days, unless a similar > question and answer have already been posted on the website." > So far, all the questions have to do with properly formatting the > proposal. Most interested parties do not pose technical questions for fear > of "giving away" technical information to the other proposers. > > Mark E. Capron, PE > Oxnard, California > www.PODenergy.org > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [geo] CDR money in DE-FOA-0000785? > From: "Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf)" <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, March 20, 2013 1:53 am > To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>, > "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, geoengineering > <[email protected]> > > Why are people still focused on the silly idea that one should sequester > CO2 from industrial point sources, and governments on sequestering “their > own” CO2 emissions? The atmosphere is a well-mixed reservoir on a time > scale of months, so where the CO2 is produced, and where it is sequestered > are irrelevant for the climate. So don’t go for the most expensive > solution, but do it the way nature has always done it, natural weathering. > We only should help that solution a bit, because presently we pump much > more CO2 in the system than nature normally does. Attached my proposal (one > of the last eleven finalists, from originally more than 2600 proposals) to > the Virgin Earth Challenge for the best idea to remove 1 billion tons of > CO2 from the atmosphere, Olaf Schuiling**** > *From:* [email protected] [ > mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] > *On Behalf Of *RAU greg > *Sent:* dinsdag 19 maart 2013 22:39 > *To:* [email protected]; geoengineering > *Subject:* Re: [geo] CDR money in DE-FOA-0000785?**** > ** ** > Thanks, Mark. **** > ** ** > To quote the FOA:**** > "A market-based solution to improve the economics of CO2 capture > includes the utilization of captured CO2 for EOR to reduce anthropogenic > CO2 emissions from coal-based power generation sources while improving > energy security. A National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) > study[1]<https://email12.secureserver.net/#_ftn1>estimates that the > utilization of approximately 20 billion tonnes of CO2 > captured from coal-fired power plants, natural sources, and industrial > sources in EOR applications could produce up to 67 billion barrels of > domestic oil from economically recoverable resources."**** > ** ** > So let's see if I understand this. If 0.42 tonnes of CO2 are released to > the atmosphere per barrel of oil, the 67 Bbls of oil produced from 20 Gt > CO2 injected will "unsequester" 28 GT CO2. Considering that power plant > CO2 would only make up 18 GT of the injected CO2 (see fine print) means > that 1.6 GT CO2 would be unsequestered for every tonne of anthro CO2 > injected. The current CO2-EOR industry average is more like 3 GT CO2 out > per GT injected and it is unclear what the economic motivation would be to > lower this ratio given the high cost of CCS CO2 relative to conventional > geologic CO2 sources for EOR. **** > ** ** > Then there is this interesting analogy offered to put things in > perspective: **** > "However, large numbers such as billions of tons of CO2 demand and > storage capacity are different [sic] to grasp and thus often of limited > value. An alternative way to illustrate the CO2 demand and storage capacity > offered by “Next Generation” CO2-EOR is to use the metric of the number of > one-GW size power plants that could rely on CO2-EOR for purchasing and > storing their captured CO2....:**** > § After subtracting out the 2.3 billion metric tons of CO2 supply > currently available, CO2-EOR still offers sufficient technical storage > capacity for all of the anthropogenic CO2 captured from 228 one-GW size > coal-fired power plants for 30 years of operation." [1]**** > ** ** > What is not stated is that the equivalent CO2 emissions of 365 one-GW > coal-fired power plants x 30 years will be unsequestered and released to > the atmosphere via the oil produced and combusted. This does not square > with the FOA's stated intent: "...to provide solutions for addressing the CO > 2 emission and global climate change concerns ..."**** > ** ** > In any case, a cost of concentrated CO2 of <$61/tonne is the stated > goal, a real challenge for retrofit CCS at conventional power plants, and a > miracle for CDR (Socolow et al., House et al.). Those offering to mitigate > CO2 by (cheaper) means other than making conc CO2 (for EOR) need not apply > (FOA, pg. 7), and can continue to wait for meaningful policy and public > funding in support of ideas that might actually help save the world rather > that perpetuate BAU.**** > ** ** > -Greg**** > > **** > ------------------------------ > [1] <https://email12.secureserver.net/#_ftnref> Dipietro, Philip, Improving > Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with “Improving > Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions with “Next Generation” > CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)”, Report # DOE/NETL-2011/1504, June > 2011. > http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/pubs/NextGen_CO2_EOR_06142011.pdf > **** > ** ** > ------------------------------ > *From:* "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > *To:* geoengineering <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Tue, March 19, 2013 7:07:03 AM > *Subject:* [geo] CDR money in DE-FOA-0000785?**** > The U.S. Department of Energy seaks proposals for capturing coal exhause > CO2, due May 2nd. They expect the captured CO2 will be used for Enhansed > Oil Recovery. **** > **** > If you have a capture-CO2-from-air (CDR) system that could be located > close to an oil well and might therefore be less expensive than > capture-from-exhaust, you might propose. DOE is likely to consider such a > proposal "non-responsive." **** > *Bench- and Pilot-Scale Applications for Research and Development of > Post-Combustion and Pre-Combustion Carbon Dioxide Capture Technologies for > Coal-Fired Power Plants***** > * ***** > *Funding Opportunity Number: DE-FOA-0000785* **** > > Response Due Date: 5/2/2013 11:59:00 PM ET > > Use the following link to view this opportunity: > > https://www.fedconnect.net/fedconnect?doc=DE-FOA-0000785&agency=DOE > > If you wish to continue to be notified about this opportunity, please be > sure to Register. If someone else in your company has already registered > your company's interest, add yourself to the Response Team by clicking Join. > > This message is sent to you as a courtesy because you listed DOE in your > FedConnect user profile. If you wish to be removed from future emails about > this agency, please update your user profile at > https://www.fedconnect.net/fedconnect **** > ** ** > Mark E. Capron, PE > Oxnard, California > www.PODenergy.org <http://www.podenergy.org/>**** > **** > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to > [email protected]<geoengineering+[email protected]> > . > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > **** > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to > [email protected]<geoengineering+[email protected]> > . > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > **** > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
