Keith and ccs:
Yesterday, you wrote: "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."
Both of your hopes are already standard (indeed mandatory if you want
good economics) for biochar. The exothermic pyrolysis reactions necessary to
convert biomass to ash yield about 18 GJ per tonne biomass. Obviously less if
you convert biomass to charcoal. If you achieve 30% char, with a value of 30
GJ/kg char), then you have about a 50%-50% [or 9 GJ-9GJ} split, with 9 GJ/kg
biomass of gas/liquid energy available for backing up wind and solar - in any
of the usual energy forms (thermal, gas, liquid, electricity) or end uses
(residential, industrial, commercial, transportation).
One other key word in your remark was "cheap". A typical cost for
biomass these days is $50/tonne. If fully combusted, this is a cost of $50/18
or less than $3/GJ (similar in $/MMBtu terms). Low cost is the reason that
there is now more global energy coming from biomass than nuclear, hydro, wind
or solar. The cost of biomass energy of course roughy doubles if combustion is
replaced by pyrolysis, but the char value when you consider long term out year
soil improvement is on the verge of being enough. Carbon sequestration value
of $15/tonne CO2 equates to about $50/tonne char (using the 44/12=3.67 ratio,
and the fact that char is not pure carbon), There is not enough incentive
being offered these days at $15/tonne CO2 - but some voluntary markets are in
operation at about these levels for biochar.
Some claim that biomass cannot be renewable - but there are plenty of
counter examples. The production of biochar makes renewable/sustainable much
more likely than other uses of biomass, given our big long-term need for
biofuels and other forms of bioenergy to get us 100% off of fossils fuels.
You emphasized "transport fuel". See www.coolplanet.com. They use the
term "fractionation" - their new advanced form of pyrolysis at high pressure
and clever catalysts. Biochar is reported to be an important part of their
corporate strategy for biofuel marketing.
Ron
On Feb 21, 2014, at 5:18 PM, Keith Henson <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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/AveEEzEMLuEJ
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.
