Ocean Forests lack CO2 capture and store capacity? See "Secure Seafloor Container CO2 Storage" co-authored with Royal Fellow Dr. R. Kerry Rowe at: http://oceanforesters.org/uploads/Secure_Seafloor_Container_CO2_Storage_copy__Oceans_13.pdf. No real capacity limit on the storage of contained CO2 hydrate. 2.1 trillion tons of CO2 stored as hydrate (about 4x the volume of liquid CO2) would raise global sea level only 24 millimeters. In-ocean trials are needed to confirm a design which is easily repaired without significant loss, should the container be assaulted by sea creatures or seafloor disturbance. Relative to Olivine, the filling containers with liquid CO2 and seawater (minutes). Without mixing, hydrate formation may take a few years. However, the geosynthetic hydrate containers may require repairs every few 1,000 years. The ideal solution might be to quickly store CO2 any of numerous relatively quick ways with less than 1% loss per 1,000 years and then react it with Olivine in the long-term.
The rate of capture is limited, but only because the inexpensively captured bio-CO2 volume is tied to the demand for the co-produced energy. That is why our strategy is to produce energy as inexpensively as possible. If our capture is so inexpensive we have leftover carbon price money, we subsidize the the energy costs until fossil fuels are left in the ground as too expensive. At which point there is no carbon price income from fossil fuel users. So we raise energy prices to subsidize removing legacy CO2 from air. We would keep swinging our energy prices to prevent the fossil fuel industry from restarting.
We are planning a new paper with hydrothermal processes for the "biomass-to-energy while recovering the nutrients" component. Hydrothermal appears to be more capital intensive but it extracts nearly all the energy (carbon) while returning nearly all the nutrients. About half the energy is in a bio-crude oil, the other half is a 60:40 CH4:CO2 biogas. Therefore nearly twice the energy yield with about the same bio-CO2 yield as for anaerobic digestion.
Mark
---------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [geo] Re: what's new on cost estimates for DAC CDR?
From: Andrew Lockley <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, August 30, 2014 2:13 am
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>,
[email protected]
Cc: Fred Zimmerman <[email protected]>,
[email protected], [email protected]
Vivian Scott also produced a comparison. Maybe he'll send it. Afforestation and olivine are cheap, but only olivine has capacity. DAC is expensive but capable.A
On 30 Aug 2014 01:56, <[email protected]> wrote:----Charlie,You mean a table or something like an updated McLaren chart, http://oceanforesters.org/References.html. The chart is at the bottom of the page. Duncan McLaren has produced this chart for a few years. His "2012 A comparative assessment..." (link near top of the same page) was published in the same journal with "Negative carbon via Ocean Afforestation."-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [geo] Re: what's new on cost estimates for DAC CDR?
From: Charlie Zender <[email protected]>
Date: Thu, August 28, 2014 1:51 pm
To: [email protected]
Fred,--It would be a great contribution if you synthsized your review into a table of DAC CDR cost estimates which we could all view.Best,Charlie
On Monday, August 25, 2014 10:17:58 PM UTC-7, Fred Zimmerman wrote:Hi --I am updating a literature review on cost estimates for DAC CDR and I am wondering what has changed both empirically and analytically since the flurry of papers in 2011-2013 with APS, House, Keith, Lackner et al.Fred Zimmerman
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA"a fox, not a hedgehog" -- Isaiah Berlin
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/d/optout.
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/d/optout.
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/d/optout.
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/d/optout.
