Testing storage with subduction zones would be an interesting multim illennial experiment. However, using the Red and Brown Clay regions, where Manganese nodule<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manganese_nodule> are abundant, might prove out to be a unique way to pay for the operation. The talk of harvesting manganese nodules is decades old and the governance of the operation is allready in place. If the benthic is to be distured for CO2 sequestration, why not go ahead and harvest the mineral and reduce the cost of the sequestration?
On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 5:09:04 PM UTC-8, andrewjlockley wrote: > 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] <javascript:>> > 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] <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.
