I'd be interested to see whether laying the CO2 into sediments in subduction zones tends to contribute to, or detract from, its stability in the crust /mantle over geologic time periods.
Much of the carbon we're burning today hasn't seen the light of day since the cretaceous. Ideally it should be banished again for that long. A On 5 Feb 2014 01:05, "Michael Hayes" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> >> Date: Tue, February 04, 2014 2:03 pm >> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, >> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> >> 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]> >> *To:* [email protected]; [email protected] >> *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] >> cell: 928 451 4455 >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] *On >> Behalf Of *Greg Rau >> *Sent:* February-04-14 12:20 PM >> *To:* [email protected] >> *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]" <[email protected]> >> *To:* [email protected]; Greg Rau <[email protected]> >> *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]. >> 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. >> >> >> -- >> 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. >> -- >> 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. >> >> >> -- >> 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. >> >> -- > 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. > -- 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.
