From David A's article:
"One interesting initiative is
the Virgin Earth Challenge, which was launched in
2007. Sponsored by Richard Branson, it offers $25m
to whoever can demonstrate a sustainable and scalable design to
permanently remove a billion tonnes
of carbon from the air every year for 10 years. Some
2600 groups applied to the challenge and last November the finalists
were picked – six from the US and
one each from Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands,
Switzerland and Canada – who now have five years
in which to win the prize."
I think all involved were expecting the winner to be announced a few
years ago. It seems to be dragging out unnecessarily. Since after all,
the whole predicate of this is that urgent action is needed!
Oliver.
--
Oliver Tickell
Kyoto2 - for an effective climate agreement.
On 03/06/2013 16:59, RAU greg wrote:
Thanks. Yes, lots of great ideas out there.
Speaking of the Virgin Earth Challenge (apparently the only CDR game
in town), what the heck happened to the prize? Did they quietly select
a winner, split the money among finalists, or say "sorry, no winner,
thanks for all of the great ideas, we were just kidding."??? For all
of the initial splash, the VEC seemed to end very somberly. Given the
importance of the topic and Branson's apparent enthusiasm, why?
-Greg
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Oliver Tickell <[email protected]>
*To:* [email protected]
*Cc:* [email protected]; [email protected];
[email protected]
*Sent:* Mon, June 3, 2013 2:42:47 AM
*Subject:* Re: [geo] Re: Meanwhile, in CDR news...
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.
--
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.
