Cost context from private email (Olaf OK'ed posting) On Thu, Feb 20, 2014 at 12:53 AM, Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf)
<[email protected]> wrote: > Well, these data are easy > As the weathering reaction is Mg2SiO4 + 4 CO2 + 4 H2O --> 2 Mg2+ + 4 HCO3-+ > H4SiO4. It means that 140 gram of olivine neutralize (capture) 176 gram of > CO2. > Mining of bulk rock from large open pit mines (and huge olivine massifs are > lying at the Earth surface, give or take a thin weathering layer on top > costs about 4 euro per ton, and milling to ~100 micron takes another 2 euro > (not my data , but directly from the mining sector itself). It is not > surprising that the volume of rock to compensate all the coal, oil and gas is > also large, namely 7 km3/year (the Bingham Canyon mine in Utah has an > excavated volume of 25 km3)., so mining 7 km3 from 30 to 50 large, but not > exceptionally large is within the normal range of modern mining. Does that > help to give you some perspective? Best regards, Olaf Schuiling That's quite useful, thanks. Current emissions of CO2 are around 35 billion tons. That would take around 28 billion tons of olivine to absorb, more depending on the Mg to Fe ratio. More yet if we need to reduce the CO2 level. I worked at a large mine (Morenci) when it milled 60,000 tons per day. That's ~2.2 million tons per year. It would take over 1200 mines of that capacity to process olivine. Morenci has since increased to milling 4.1 million tons per year. They also mine for leaching about 250 million tons per year, but that is not milled. The Wikipedia article mentions that fine ground olivine will weather in a few years. But that assumes contact with water and CO2, something hard to do unless spread out on the surface. Would it react in seawater? I.e., grind to dust and spread in the ocean? Taking your numbers for mining and milling, the cost would be around 170 billion euros per year. The initial capital investment would be a small multiplier of the yearly operating cost. I.e., the start up cost might run 500 to 600 billion euros. Wow. Contrast with the proposed power satellites and laser propulsion scheme. Sized to ends the production of CO2 in 20 years, it would take about 50 B euros to get started. The power satellite production business looks like it would turn a ten year ROI of 500%. Milling rock for weathering absorbs money as long as it is in operation, Still, after ending production of CO2, we might want or need to reduce it somewhat. I prefer weathering rock to concentrating it from the air and storing it underground. A few cubic km of stored CO2 blowing out would be bad news for those downwind. We have already seen about 2000 people killed by CO2 from natural blowouts. The alternative to weathering would be to turn excess CO2 into synthetic oil and pump it back into empty oil fields. Synthetic oil is something we will be making anyway. Thanks again for the numbers. Keith On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Keith Henson <[email protected]> wrote: > "But Keith, you compare apples and pears" > > That may be true. But I think what we should be concerned about is > the level of CO2. It's kind of like being concerned with the level of > water inside a small boat. > > Mining and crushing olivine is like bailing out the boat. Power > satellites are a way to plug the hole in the boat. Olivine and cheap > power sats will respectively bail out or stop the inflow. If the goal > is to reduce the future level of water in the boat (CO2 in the > atmosphere) then either will accomplish the goal and we need to look > at the cost to decide which to do. If our figures are roughly > correct, then the start up cost for olivine mining and crushing will > be about ten times as much as power satellites for the same reduction > of CO2 in the atmosphere. > > I think your cost numbers are much more certain than mine are. Yours > are based on mining, an old and very well understood field. Mine are > based on new aerospace work on a scale not seen before, though the > program has already started with Reaction Engines getting $350 million > to develop the Skylon engines. > > We may still need olivine or some other method (like storing synthetic > oil) to get the CO2 out of the atmosphere if we stop putting it in and > it is still too high. > > Best wishes, > > Keith > > PS. I agree with you on ccs. > > On Sat, Feb 22, 2014 at 4:53 AM, Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf) > <[email protected]> wrote: >> But Keith, you compare apples and pears. Olivine is not intended to dim the >> sunlight or provide cheap energy, it is aiming to reduce the CO2 >> concentration of the atmosphere to combat climate change and ocean >> acidification, and I don't see how you can achieve either of these goals by >> providing cheap solar energy (although I welcome that too, and have been >> defending similar concepta). I compare the cost of olivine mining and >> spreading to the cost of that silly ccs idea, which is 5 to 10 times more >> expensive, and not very safe nor sustainable, Olaf Schuiling >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Keith Henson [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: zaterdag 22 februari 2014 1:18 >> To: Michael Hayes >> Cc: geoengineering; Greg Rau; Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf); Ronal Larson; Stephen >> Salter >> Subject: Re: Rocks to Rockets, Simple Stuff. >> >> Olaf and I did some off list discussion. The result was that olivine mining >> looks to be at least ten times more expensive than the solar power from >> space option. >> >> That is if I have put the right numbers into the laser propulsion and power >> satellite economic model. And if Olaf has the right numbers for the cost of >> mining olivine. >> >> BTW, on the surface SRM front, PV or thermal solar power plants look much >> blacker from space than the desert they replace. How much this will affect >> warming depends on how many we deploy. It may or may not become a problem >> with extreme deployment. Arizona is hot enough as it is. >> >> Keith >> >> PS. Biochar is a good idea in any case. It would be even better if the >> heat to make it came from a cheap renewable source and the off gas collected >> to make transport fuel. >> >> On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Michael Hayes <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Greg, Kieth, Olaf et.al., >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Ref: >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/nncNYX7jS2U/AveEEzEMLuE >>> J >>> >>> >>> >>> The large basket strategy that Greg puts forth does seem to be the >>> most sound approach. On the cost and carbon footprint of milling >>> olivine; Olaf has done reliable work showing that this can be be >>> inexpensively done using wave action. And, by using wave action in the >>> reduction of the olivine, the synergistic effect is a localized pH >>> adjustment of the water. Thus, the carbon footprint issue can be >>> negated to a large degree. Olivine, in general, does offer multiple bird >>> hits with one rather simple stone. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> The philosophy of "and investigate/employ a lot of other technologies, >>> actions, and behaviors as well to help solve the problem." has been >>> largely overshadowed by the understandable desire to develop means and >>> methods which reduce everything down to a simplistic formula. As we >>> know, Nature is not simplistic and global warming is far from >>> simplistic. Expecting a simplistic solution which is flexible enough >>> to meet Natures needs (and ours) may not be realistic. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Looking for the most productive synergistic links between the >>> technologies/socioeconomic needs/governance needs etc. and recognizing >>> how the highest possible synergistic effect(s) can be achieved within >>> a general working arena could prove out as being a productive first >>> step in building a road-map for global warming mitigation and >>> adaptation. Instead of working towards the reduction of technology to >>> a minimum, it may be best to find ways to be as inclusive as possible. >>> To date, I've found that the Large Scale Mariculture (LSM) concept can >>> act as a nexus for multiple technologies that have been well covered >>> within this group and elsewhere. The following list is not exhaustive: >>> >>> >>> >>> 1) Olivine for multiple roles >>> 2) Biochar for multiple roles >>> 3) Surface SRM (non-SSI) for multiple roles >>> 4) MCB as an adjunct means for extending SRM coverage (ENSO buffering) >>> 5) BECCS, a carbon negative replacement of FFs >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Kieth has a strong interest in low cost space launch (as I). Having >>> access to multiple launch platforms within the subtropical convergence >>> zones (STCZ) that, by and large, pay for themselves (and possibly help >>> pay for launch >>> services) could be a significant factor in getting to the advanced >>> space based energy stage that Kieth has envisioned. The STCZs function >>> well as regional launch sites and LSM platforms could be the nexus of >>> the launch efforts. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> This post started out defending the use of a 'rock'. Yet, getting to >>> LEO can be reasonably linked with that rock as olivine is actually, >>> IMHO, important in the technology mix needed to make large scale >>> multi-use ocean based systems profitable. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> >>> >>> Michael Hayes >>> 360-708-4976 >>> The Large Scale Mariculture Option: Draft >>> http://voglerlake.wix.com/vogler-lake-web-site >>> >>> -- 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.
