Michael, cc Greg and List
Thanks again for keeping this ocean resource topic on the table (I’m
forgetting the mitigation side, and thinking CDR only here). I won’t go
through all your points but want to (as a rank amateur on all types of algae)
better understand the ocean resource potential for CDR.
I liked your attached report, but was surprised to find (by searching for
“macro algae”, that it now has ten times better costing and a market 100 times
large than micro algae. Are there any groups pushing on macro algae for CDR?
Why do we not hear more on the macro algae side?
Also surprised that little of the report dealt with the seawater systems
that you focus on. Why not more in that report on seawater algae?
You have shown a price for a microalgae reactor of $45/m2. I think the
comparable number for macro algae must be much less, without too much loss in
annual productivity. I am thinking of a system with pyrolysis, capturing
energy and char and (too?) little remaining in the ocean - hopefully achieving
a CDR of quite a few (10?) tonnes C/ha-yr.
Shouldn’t mariculture be much more productive with open macro algae beds vs
closed micro algae systems? How important could more fish be in the economics?
I think an advantage of macro algae could be in offering more employment.
Anybody estimating jobs per tonne C of CDR?
Your example with 100 million hectares then sounds like only enough to get
about one wedge for macro algae. Could you comment on the realism of getting
more wedges with either micro or macro algae? Can you do better for CDR than
10 t C/ha-yr (1 kg C/m2-yr) with microalgae? (I ask because little of the
micro algae literature deals with CDR.)
I guess I am asking (for CDR purposes only) to rank order the four cases of
combining a) micro algae and b) macro algae with c) digestion (all non-energy
products stay in the ocean) and d) pyrolysis (char used only on land). Best
economics OK for the energy products (heat, electricity, gas, or liquids) in
any of the combinations (ac) (ad) (bc) (bd)
This all hoping that Andrew MacDougall or his successors have your best
estimates as they include algae in model updates.
Again thanks and apologies for not having much background on algae.
Ron
On Dec 21, 2013, at 4:43 PM, Michael Hayes <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Keith, et.al.,
>
>
>
> You ended with "Or, if it is less expensive, you can use plants to collect
> the CO2 and process that into biochar and the gas into synthetic oil. Lots of
> options with oceans of low cost energy." The basic numbers on using marine
> biomass are worth serious attention. Getting up to 150 barrels of biodiesel
> per day out of a 1 km2 photobioreactor array may be possible. The main issue,
> however, is how to offset the cost of the operation to the point of being
> competitive with FF extraction. It takes less than $1 per barrel to pump FF
> oil or gas and this puts biofuel at a server disadvantage in any price war.
> One way to offset the cost of marine biomass based biofuel production may be
> to produce higher dollar products, such as seafood and organic fertilizer
> (with biochar added), along side the biofuel production and use the profits
> from the non-biofuel products to support the biofuel at a sub-FF market
> price. In simple words, cheat on the economic side if you can't win on the
> physics side!
>
> It would take roughly around 530K km2 of marine biomass production, using
> large bore photobioreators, to meet current world oil production. The
> non-fuel production (seafood/fertilizer etc.) would need as much space as the
> biofuel production. Also, that scale of ocean coverage (1M+ km2) could be
> used as a significant surface water cooling means for critical ocean areas
> such as the subtropical convergence zones. This oceanic/atmospheric thermal
> benefit should not be undervalued.
>
> This marine biomass scenario is relevant to Mr. MacDougall's article on two
> primary counts:
>
>
> 1) The use of marine biomass can address many of the operational limitations
> envisioned in his article. As marine biomass would start off as a profitable
> operation, its' expansion would be rapid and thus the reduction in the
> atmospheric/oceanic CO2 store could be drawn down within a few decades a
> opposed to 900+ years.
>
> 2) Mr. MacDougall's hypothesis of needing to remove more than the original
> emissions ("the quantity of carbon that must be removed from the atmosphere
> is larger than the quantity that was originally emitted (115–180% of original
> emissions."), if true, may actually be be needed if marine biomass becomes
> the global portable liquid fuel standard. One potential draw back with using
> marine biomass is that it may become too popular as it would unshackle oil
> importing nations from the oil producing ones and thus encourage global
> production beyond the net emissions of CO2 and thus may possibly create a
> global cooling trend.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Regulating the average global temperature could be directly coupled to marine
> biofuel production and use. And, establishing global warming governance
> through biofuel production does seem to be the most equitable form of
> governance for both the environmental issues and global energy issues.
>
> As a side note on the development of the math; I'm still trying to work out
> just how much CO2 would be consumed/stored/cycled in the large scale
> photobioreator array scenario (aka. Large Scale Mariculture-LSM). The organic
> fertilizer (comprised of fish tank solid waste, spent micro algae and
> halophytes from the oil press and enhanced with biochar derived from
> micro/macro algae and halophytes) is complicating the math as the fertilizer
> can be viewed as sort or long term carbon storage derived from both fuel
> production and non-fuel production streams. Also, just estimating the effects
> of the fertilizer on the crop land mycorrhizal growth (and subsequent carbon
> storage) is an interesting and protracted challenge.
>
> The bottom line is that the technology is available and the basic science is
> well understood. A recommendation to move forward on prototyping such a
> system does seem to be realistic. Also, focusing in upon an instillation
> large enough to meet the energy needs of the State of Hawaii would provide a
> scale large enough to be worth institutional/governmental/corporate level
> investment while providing ample scope of operations for scientific
> investigations. The BoE estimate of the LSM instillation cost is (currently)
> around $45M per km2 with a 7 year break even time frame. The confidence
> factor on that estimate is around 75%.
>
>
>
>
>
> I've attached a well done study on why micro algae biofuel is typically not
> considered competitive with FFs. Moving to the convergence zones and using
> mass produced HDPE dual walled photobioreactors addresses the main
> operational limiting factors listed in the paper. The use of non-biofuel
> product profits to offset biofuel production costs is a new approach and is
> currently being evaluated.
>
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
>
>
> Michael
>
>
> On Friday, December 20, 2013 10:07:44 PM UTC-8, Keith Henson wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 3:19 PM, Ronal W. Larson
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > List cc Keith and Greg
> >
> > 1. This is #3/3 in a string today - all with some relationship to the
> > MacDougall article). Not sure of the etiquette here as Keith was only
> > addressing Greg and myself. But Greg responded to the full list and I
> > think/hope Keith would like that I do the same.
>
> No problem. I was just trying not to be presumptuous and/or off topic.
>
> > Keith has talked of his
> > proposed low-cost electricity approach earlier on this list.
> >
> > 2. As background, readers interested in Keith’s electricity production
> > views should look at material at
> > https://docs.google.com/file/d/1PHkFACumTHyfMPOfIDhAY46vPe_mt8zNmy3i2ZsOnHgqZqpGuMpSh3JaJsCO/edit
> >
> > I also found a video covering the same.
> >
> > 3. I am pretty sure that Keith is one of the world experts on this solar
> > satellite topic. He certainly has had a long history of various
> > space-oriented activities.
>
> There are many people more knowledgeable than I am on the subtopics.
> Jordin Kare, for example, knows much more about laser propulsion. But
> I have put the whole thing into an economic model and made minor
> contributions here and there.
>
> > 4. See also two responses below.
> >
> >
> > On Dec 20, 2013, at 11:13 AM, Keith Henson <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 20, 2013 at 8:20 AM, Ronal W. Larson
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Keith cc Greg
> >
> > I appreciate your enthusiasm for the solar satellite approach, but I have
> > my hands more than full with CDR (and specifically biochar).
> >
> >
> > What you really need is a way to turn off the current flow of CO2 into
> > the atmosphere. *Then* biochar or other ways to lower the CO2 have a
> > chance to work. But that's not going to happen as long as people need
> > energy to stay alive unless there is a way to replace the energy from
> > fossil fuels. It's the reason Hansen and the rest of them have
> > recognized nuclear energy. That will work if you are willing to put
> > up with a meltdown a year.
> >
> >
> > RWL1. Readers will find that Keith’s approach is quite expensive (many
> > trillions of $) and not likely ready soon.
>
> That's not in my writings on the topic. The economic model may not be
> right, but it shows that the venture needs only $60 billion to become
> profitable. That a bit over half the largest energy project now going
> and only twice what China put into building Three Gorges Dam.
>
> As for "soon", it looks like the first power from space will take
> about 6 years, break even slightly short of 8 years and 500% ROI in
> ten years. Fast ramp up takes it to replacing the energy from fossil
> fuels in 22 years. The power companies have to spend trillions on
> replacement power plants anyway, this is just a cheap way to build
> carbon free sustainable power. Of course it will never be ready
> unless it is started, and for that to happen, it needs to be
> recognized as a practical engineering project.
>
> That's going to take some effort, including psychological, acceptance
> that there can be a positive, energy rich future. I *think* there are
> solutions to the identified problems, but there may be a showstopper
> not yet found..So beat on it folks.
>
> >The above site shows a new lower
> > cost way to put hardware in space. My view is that today's renewables can
> > do the job at an acceptable cost -
>
> I don't think this is the case. Gail Tverberg, widely known as "Gail
> the Actuary" on The Oil Drum blog has this article out.
>
> http://theenergycollective.com/gail-tverberg/266116/oil-prices-lead-hard-financial-limits
>
>
> Couple of months ago at a conference in Baltimore I pinned Gail down
> and she gave $30-50/bbl oil as an acceptable range for energy cost.
> Synthetic oil can be made for that cost from electric power of 1-2
> cents per kWh. That means power satellites can cost up to $1600/kW
> and lift cost to GEO can be no more than $100/kg, one percent of
> current cost for communication satellites, but well under the
> theoretical physics limits.
>
> But there is no possibility I know of for getting power from ground PV
> or wind down to 1-2 cents per kWh. For PV, consider
> http://htyp.org/File:Solar_PV_Experience.jpg The lower limit for PV
> is around 60 cents per watt or $600/kW. That's a good number till you
> multiply it by 4-5 to get the cost for full time power. When you use
> an optimistic 4, the number is $2400/kW. The rough formula to get
> cents per kWh is to divide by 80,000 which gives you 3 cents. That's
> about twice as high as is needed for cheap synthetic oil and that's
> after truly heroic installation of ground PV, decades into the future.
>
> > but I wish Keith luck if he can do the
> > fossil fuel replacement job cheaper. I concur on his statements about
> > nuclear - which I believe has no or small connection to geoengineering.
> > Keith has previously proposed a way to make a fuel starting with CO2 and
> > his
> > low cost electricity. Again not a “Geo” topic -but maybe someone can offer
> > other approaches on either the CDR or fossil replacement tasks?
>
> There is a direct connection. A process that can make cheap synthetic
> oil from CO2 out of the air can pump the cheap oil back into empty oil
> fields. It stayed there for geological times, no reason it would not
> be a good way to sequester carbon. If 500 cubic km of CO2 (~100 ppm)
> were stored underground and it blew out, it would be hard to breathe
> for a long way down wind. See notes here
> http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5485 BTW, bio char is a much better
> idea than anything involving CO2 that could blow out.
> >
> > What was the
> > reason the Japanese dropped their program?
> >
> > I don't know, but it really doesn't matter. The program they were
> > working on would not lead to displacing fossil fuels. The
> > Skylon/laser propulsion/power satellite approach *might*.
> >
> > I calculated how much energy it would take to capture and safely
> > sequester 100 ppm of CO2. Have you run this calculation?
> >
> >
> > [RWL: The first answer is that biochar doesn’t require ANY energy - as
> > pyrolysis is exothermic. But assuming Keith wants to know how energy and
> > char work together, I can say they are NOT partners; more of one means
> > less
> > of the other (biochar is a partner with soil improvement). But if half of
> > the initial carbon produces energy (and released CO2), then 100 ppm of CO2
> > requires about 400 Gt C to be put in the ground (we have had other dialog
> > on this number). The energy content of the other 400 Gt C is valued at
> > about 30 GJ/tonne C. (of course not all useful). Thus the theoretical
> > available energy is about 12,000 E18 Joules.
>
> Using pyrolysis gas to make biochar is a terrible waste when it could
> go to making valuable liquid synthetic fuel. If energy from power
> sats got down into the 1-2 cents per kWh range, it would be worth
> using it to make biochar, and you would have *much* fewer design
> problems on the processing units.
>
> > Hopefully, we can get started soon enough that we need less than 100
> > ppm.
> > Hopefully there will be a suite of CDR approaches, that will be using PV,
> > wind, hydro, geothermal (and some non-biochar biomass)
> >
> > What is your own calculation on “how much energy it would take”? (I
> > presume all of an opposite sign?)
>
> 300 TW-years to make 100 ppm into synthetic oil and pump it back into
> the depleted oil fields.
>
> 22 years into the power satellite project, the production to date
> would have been 15 TW and the rate two TW/year of new plant. Continue
> to build for another 7.5 years or more and in about ten additional
> years you can put all the extra CO2 back in the ground.
>
> Or, if it is less expensive, you can use plants to collect the CO2 and
> process that into biochar and the gas into synthetic oil.
>
> Lots of options with oceans of low cost energy.
>
> Keith
>
> > Ron
> >
> >
> > (The next addressed today to Greg and myself, with one response each
> > from Greg and myself)
> >
> >
> >
> > On Dec 20, 2013, at 12:05 AM, Keith Henson <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Would you be interested in an engineering proposal to end the use of
> > fossil fuels?
> >
> > Warning, it does so by substituting a cheaper energy source.
> >
> > Keith Henson
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Greg Rau <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > Delayed response from me also. Just saw a brief review of this paper in my
> >
> >
> > <snipped - to save space; I think all repeated earlier today>
> >
> <A Realistic Technology and Engineering Assessment of Algae Biofue.pdf>
--
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
