But why no mention of CDR by accelerated rock weathering (AGR)? This is
one of the solutions selected by the Virgin Challenge - the one from
Netherlands. And it is being promoted by Olaf Schuilling, who is a
member of this Geoengineering Group.
This is a low tech, low cost approach - which consists of mining olivine
bearing rock, grinding it up to approx 0.1mm, and spreading it land /
coast where it will completely weather away over a period of under 10
years, converting CO2 to bicarbonate in solution. All for ~$10/tCO2.
Emissions for mining, transport, grinding, just a few % of the CO2 gain.
So what's not to include about it? Oliver.
On 02/06/2013 20:29, RAU greg wrote:
Thanks, David, very nice review. Where our technology departs from the
higher profile abiotic methods you discuss is: 1) expensively
concentrated CO2 is not formed (or stored), 2) reactions occur at
ambient T and P - exotic chemicals and conditions are avoided (so
far), 3) excess ocean rather than excess air CO2 can be mitigated,
avoiding the need for more complex air scrubbing technology. Why go to
the added expense/effort of getting air CO2 into solution to then do
chemistry when vast areas of the surface ocean are already
supersaturated in CO2? Doing the chemistry there completely avoids
the giant land footprint and energy required for air scrubbing that
you mention, as well as avoids the need for molecular CO2
sequestration or use. Obviously, the safety of doing this in the
ocean needs to be researched, but generating ocean alkalinity would
seem an improvement over our current ocean acidification "program".
I'm not alone in my thinking; this builds on Kheshgi (1995), House et
al. (2007), and Harvey (2008) among others.
-Greg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* David Appell <[email protected]>
*To:* [email protected]
*Cc:* [email protected]
*Sent:* Sun, June 2, 2013 10:55:22 AM
*Subject:* Re: [geo] Re: Meanwhile, in CDR news...
Mark:
I have an article in this month's Physics World magazine that answers
some of these questions:
“Mopping Up Carbon,” Physics World, June 2013, pp. 23-27.
http://www.davidappell.com/articles/PWJun13Appell-air_capture.pdf
David
On 6/2/2013 8:05 AM, Mark Massmann wrote:
> I'm wondering if anyone can respond to these questions:
>
> I could be missing this, but how long is it estimated to take for
the devices to capture each ton of CO2? If the systems were installed
to capture coal plant emissions, I'd imagine that the capture rate
would be maximized. However installing the systems outside of those
sources might lower the capture rate to the point that the system
becomes impractical (i.e. like installing a wind farm in a location
that's simply not windy enough on average)
-- 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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[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.
