Mark et.al., In your work with using the benthic zone for CO2 storage, have you contemplated, or found others suggesting, the injection of liquid CO2 within the Pelagic sediment <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagic_sediment>? Using an oceanic version of a subsoiler<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsoiler>to lay in rows of hydrate tubes (encased in plastic or not) does seem to be a way to protect the fabricated hydrates from any form of disturbance. Is this burying of the hydrates simply going overboard? On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 4:03:29 PM UTC-8, MarkCapron wrote:
> Group - The point is that DOE should be spending $6million on more options > than just the deep-earth supercritical gas version preferred by the oil > industry. You can adjust the suggested Amendment to include the option you > prefer. My draft includes two options which might share the oil industry > term "geologic." > > Peter - Please do not suggest storing *uncontained* liquid CO2 below > 3,000 meters to anyone associated with the U.S. Government. They will > dismiss you instantly and never want to hear from you again. Their concern > is that uncontained CO2 continues to dissolve back into the ocean even > while sheets of hydrate form at the CO2-water interface and sink into the > liquid CO2, displacing the liquid CO2, perhaps causing it to overflow the > "basin." The uncontained CO2 hydrate will also continue to dissolve into > whatever unsaturated seawater contacts it. You'll notice we suggest > research on *contained* CO2-hydrate. > > Greg - In the unique instance of the biogas from an Ocean Forest > ecosystem, we already have 90% CO2 at no extra expense to the CH4, food, > and biodiversity production. That is $0/tonne to produce the 90% CO2. The > expense of liquefying pure CO2 is less than the value of the recovered CH4 > (the other 10%). > > Mark > > Mark E. Capron, PE > Ventura, California > www.PODenergy.org > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [geo] Tilting at the DE-FOA-0001037 windmill to increase > carbon storage options > From: Greg Rau <[email protected] <javascript:>> > Date: Tue, February 04, 2014 2:03 pm > To: "[email protected] <javascript:>" <[email protected] <javascript:>>, > > "[email protected] <javascript:>" > <[email protected]<javascript:> > > > > Yes, but you have to spend $80-$100/tonne to make that CO2 from most waste > sources. Since no one wants to pay this, I don't see a great need to worry > about where to store it. Nor do we have to worry about this if we are > converting the waste CO2 to organic or inorganic compounds without > concentrating (and then storing) molecular CO2. > > If one is really concerned about marine ecosystems (e.g., Hawaii) one can > spontaneously convert CO2 in the power plant tail pipe to Ca(HCO3)2aq using > wet mineral carbonate or maybe even silicate scrubbing and add this to the > ocean. Thus, CO2 captured and stored in non-molecular form - check; the > alkalinity added to the the ocean helps offset the biogeochem effects of > fossil energy's legacy to the sea - ocean acidification - check. Where's > DOE's multi $M FOA to study this option? > Greg > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Peter Flynn <[email protected] <javascript:>> > *To:* [email protected] <javascript:>; > [email protected]<javascript:> > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 4, 2014 12:03 PM > *Subject:* RE: [geo] Tilting at the DE-FOA-0001037 windmill to increase > carbon storage options > > Deep ocean injection is one option. I think the critical depth is 3000 m; > below that the CO2 remains a separate phase and would sink to the bottom. > Deep ocean residence time on average is 600 to 1000 years, but zones of the > ocean are more isolated from currents and would have a longer residence > time. The pool of CO2 on the ocean floor would impact biota. > > Peter > > Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D. > Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers > Department of Mechanical Engineering > University of Alberta > [email protected] <javascript:> > cell: 928 451 4455 > > > > *From:* [email protected] <javascript:> [mailto: > [email protected] <javascript:>] *On Behalf Of *Greg Rau > *Sent:* February-04-14 12:20 PM > *To:* [email protected] <javascript:> > *Subject:* Re: [geo] Tilting at the DE-FOA-0001037 windmill to increase > carbon storage options > > Happy to help you tilt at the DOE windmill, but the problem is much larger > than this FOA. The problem is the assumption that supercritical CO2 can be > affordably produced from waste sources in the first place. Until (if) that > is solved, what to do with such CO2 seems rather secondary (also scary > considering the volatility of conc CO2 at ambient T and P). > What needs to happen is R&D on reacting CO2 out of waste streams to make > stable/useful compounds other than conc CO2, the standard approach in > mitigating all other gaseous pollutants. How/why DOE has avoided doing this > for CO2 mitigation is the "burning" question ;-) > Greg > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* "[email protected] <javascript:>" > <[email protected]<javascript:> > > > *To:* [email protected] <javascript:>; Greg Rau > <[email protected]<javascript:>> > > *Sent:* Monday, February 3, 2014 8:04 PM > *Subject:* [geo] Tilting at the DE-FOA-0001037 windmill to increase > carbon storage options > > Greg and Group, > > The U.S. Department of Energy plans another $6million to check out > deep-earth supercritical CO2 storage. If you have the ear of a State > Governor or Senator, you could send them the attached. > > State interests come in two flavors: > > 1. Coastal states and territories without oil and gas wells (and > therefore not likely to have locations for deep-earth supercritical gas > storage) including: Hawaii, Florida, Maine, southeastern Alaska, Puerto > Rico, etc. > > 2. Coastal states with fracking produced oil because the oil industry > will employ CO2 enhanced oil production to keep the wells flowing longer > while "storing" CO2. The DOE funded research would reduce the risk of CO2 > leaking, so California might want DOE covering 80% of the research cost. > States in this boat include: California and Gulf Coast states. > > The logic for extending the definition of "geologic storage" is in the > sample letter. > > Mark > > Mark E. Capron, PE > Ventura, California > 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] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> > . > 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 [email protected] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> > . > 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 [email protected] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> > . > 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 [email protected] <javascript:>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<javascript:> > . > 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 [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.
