Ken, list etal (adding Greg Rau, who probably is closest to this)
1. The price per ton CO2 given at the bottom of Table 3 in the McDermott
paper given by Ken a few days ago came to $20.70/ton CO2. Converting to 2013 $
(about 30% more over the 2001 $ used), metric units and carbon (rather than
CO2, using the ratio 44/12) gives about $100/Tonne C today. This is, I
believe, quite attractive compared to other numbers being floated around for
CCS.
I have been asked by a friend whether there has been any commercialization
attempt at this since 2002 - and if not why not?
This is the only question; the next two items are just comments -
translating this over to the world of biochar.
2. This doesn’t yet fall into the category of CDR, but could with biomass
replacing coal (then probably should not be called BECCS or BECS, since the
term CCS seems best reserved for underground CO2 storage.). Needing smaller
plants to keep biomass transport cost down, that results in lower efficiency,
has anybody estimated a CDR costing? Maybe $125-$150/tonne C? (Asking for a
scaling factor when plant size falls by a factor of 10) Note this could be
the back end as well of some biomass electrical generating systems where
pyrolysis rather than combustion is employed; then about half the C in the
input biomass would be released as CO2.
3. Because charcoal is not 100% carbon, one would have to pay less than about
$125 /tonne of char to receive a break-even sequestration credit of $100/tonne
C. (Or stated conversely, if you paid $100/tonne char, the sequestration value
should not be more than $80/tonne C (in a societal sense, the farmer/forester,
will of course try to minimize the cost of the char
The point of these quick computations is to say that there would be lots
of farmers and foresters willing to put char in the ground if the going rate
for sequestration were roughly $100/tonne C (or $27/tonne CO2 or $80/tonne
char). That is - I am claiming the long term value to the farmer/forester and
society would exceed these “$100” numbers.
Ron
On Dec 13, 2013, at 12:06 PM, Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu>
wrote:
> The basic idea is:
>
> CO2 (gas) + CaCO3 (solid) + H2O (liquid) --> Ca2+ + 2 HCO3- (dissolved in
> the ocean)
>
>
>
> _______________
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution for Science
> Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
> +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu
> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab
> https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira
>
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Keith Henson <hkeithhen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Elton, could you real quickly go through the chemistry involved?
>
> I miss seeing how CaCO3 absorbs more CO2, but my chemistry is rusty by
> many decades.
>
> Keith
>
> On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Elton Sherwin
> <esher...@carbonzeroinstitute.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I am very interested in using limestone to sequester CO2 in power plants.
> > This approach--and related limestone based approaches--seem to have promise.
> > And as Ken says they look more affordable than competing technologies.
> >
> >
> >
> > Not sure how our little underfund institute can help, but let me know if I
> > can.
> >
> >
> >
> > Elton Sherwin
> >
> > Executive Director, Carbon Zero Institute
> >
> > Cell: 650.823.9221
> >
> > www.CarbonZeroInstitute.org
> >
> >
> >
> > From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> > [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira
> > Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2013 8:30 AM
> > To: tim.kru...@oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk
> > Cc: geoengineering; Andrew Lockley
> >
> >
> > Subject: [geo] McDermott White Paper (2002) on accelerated carbonate
> > weathering as a CCS approach
> >
> >
> >
> > Tim,
> >
> >
> >
> > As per your request to Andrew, attached is an analysis of using accelerated
> > limestone weathering to sequester CO2 from power plant flue gases and
> > dispose of it in the ocean, with the carbon acidity neutralized by the
> > alkalinity provided by the calcium in the calcium carbonate.
> >
> >
> >
> > They concluded that this approach was both economically viable and had much
> > lower energy overheads than did "conventional" CCS with amine scrubbers and
> > suchlike.
> >
> >
> >
> > This is an area in which Greg Rau has done a lot of work, and in which I
> > have done some work: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Greg_Rau/
> >
> >
> >
> > Best,
> >
> >
> >
> > Ken
> >
> >
> >
> > PS. McDermott Technologies, Inc, used to own Babcock and Wilcox, the
> > nuclear engineering company, but spun this off in 2010:
> > http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-McDermott_to_spin_off_BandW-0707104.html
> >
> >
> > _______________
> > Ken Caldeira
> >
> > Carnegie Institution for Science
> >
> > Dept of Global Ecology
> >
> > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
> >
> > +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu
> >
> > http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab
> >
> > https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> > 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> > 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
