List cc Greg and Michael:
1. This note relates to Michael's submission (geoengineering category)
to MIT at http://climatecolab.org/plans/-/plans/contestId/1300209/planId/3710 .
I just became the 8th supporter. His solo effort is quite remarkable, and has
been so recognized by the judges to date. Because he has given considerable
attention to how his form of CDR should be governed, his package could be of
interest to many on this list. Central is a "b-corporation" ( a different
"B").
.
2. I will let Michael respond to Greg's comments below. Many of
Greg's concerns are answered in Michael's lengthy proposal. A hydrocarbon fuel
emphasis makes sense because liquid fuels are now the most costly (compared to
methane and coal) and likely to rise fastest. Using his biomass output for
biochar answers many of Greg's concerns.
3. I have a different concern (following some off-list dialog with
Michael). I feel Michael's emphasis on using hydrogen as a means of converting
CO2 to biomass in the dark - has some promise. However, I have tried
unsuccessfully to locate backup material to that Michael has cited (some
attention has been given to this topic by Melvin Calvin). So, I think
Michael's added-H2 approach will require a lengthy research path that should be
done in parallel with the more straightforward CDR approach Michael mentions
most often in his very lengthy proposal: biochar. Michael has a list of
several other worthy CDR approaches as well. To me, it is Michael's (and
several others on this list) emphasis on ocean biomass for CDR that needs more
discussion on this list.
Ron
On Sep 17, 2014, at 11:40 AM, Greg Rau <[email protected]> wrote:
> How about just using the H2 as fuel and sequestering the CO2? You'd lose
> energy by making hydrocarbon fuel from the H2. Or if you insist on
> hydrocarbons, why not just ferment the biomass and make methane/methanol +
> conc CO2. If you are going to fertilize the ocean to make biomass where is
> the fertilizer (N,P, Si, Fe, etc.) coming from and what are the impacts of
> making (mining?), packaging, and transporting it? How will nutrients be
> recycled? What are the environmental impacts of all of the preceding?
> Greg
>
> From: Michael Hayes <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2014 1:14 PM
> Subject: [geo] Re: Steam Co-Gasification - Brown Seaweed, Land-Based Biomass
> (+CCS/AWL?)
>
> Greg et al,
>
> Yes, the combination of marine biomass gasification with AWL does offer
> interesting synergistic potential. To extend this synergistic link even
> further, the H2 and CO2 can, in turn, be used to cultivate, without
> light/photosynthesis, even larger volumes of marine biomass through the
> process of:
>
> REDUCTION OF CARBON DIOXIDE COUPLED WITH THE OXYHYDROGEN REACTION IN ALGAE
>
> BY HANS GAFFRON
> (From the Department of Chemistry, The University of Chicago, Chicago)
> (Received for publication, July 6, 1942)
>
> "Summarizing these results one can hardly avoid the conclusion that with the
> exception of the typical light absorption by chlorophyll both photoreduction
> and dark reduction of carbon dioxide in green algae proceed along the same
> pathways.".
>
> This serial reuse of the CO2, before sequestration through AWL/sea floor
> injection/biochar/fertilizer etc., does appear, at the ideation level, to
> offer a low cost means for both energy production and CO2 sequestration. In
> that, the 'dark reduction' method allows for low cost 'dark reactors' to be
> submerged and 'stacked' down to the maximum pressure depth tolerated by the
> micro algae.
>
> Corn gives us around 240 gal/yr/ac of fuel. Typical micro algal cultivation
> gives us around 5K gal/yr/ac. The use of the 'dark reduction' method within
> 'dark reactor farms' makes the use of the acre comparison moot. We can see
> 50K gal/yr/ac. Thus, micro algal, as opposed to macro algal, cultivation can
> have a strong advantage over all other forms of biomass production and thus
> carbon negative fuel.
>
> The above is central to the IMBECS Protocol technology suite.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michael
>
> P.S. From the 'ethics view', the above can not be faulted.
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, September 16, 2014 10:51:07 AM UTC-7, Greg Rau wrote:
> Add CCS or preferably AWL to get C negativity. Figure out a way to
> cost-effectively harvest biomass and recycle nutrients, and you might have
> something, pending rigorous analysis from our ethics experts.
> Greg
> Steam co-gasification of brown seaweed and land-based biomass
>
>
>
>
>
> DOI: 10.1016/j.fuproc.2013.12.013
>
> Get rights and content
>
>
> Highlights
>
> *
>
> Excellent self-catalytic effect was found in steam gasification of seaweed.
>
> *
>
> More gas was produced from seaweed than land-based biomass.
>
> *
>
> Addition of brown seaweed in land-based biomass promoted gasification rate.
>
>
> Abstract
>
> Alkali and alkaline earth species in biomass have self-catalytic activity on
> the steam gasification to produce hydrogen-rich gas. In this study, three
> types of biomass, i.e., brown seaweed, Japanese cedar, apple branch
> containing different concentrations of alkali and alkaline earth species, and
> the mix of both of them were gasified with steam in a fixed-bed reactor under
> atmospheric pressure. The effects of reaction temperature, steam amount and
> mixing ratio in co-gasification on gas production yields were investigated.
>
> The results showed that higher gas production yields (especially for H2 and
> CO2) were obtained when the brown seaweed was used than the other two types
> of biomass since the ash content in brown seaweed was much higher than in
> land-based biomass and contained a large amount of alkali and alkaline earth
> species.
>
> The yield of hydrogen increased with an increase in the amount of steam, but
> excessive steam use reduced the hydrogen production yield. From the
> co-gasification experiments, the gas production yields (especially for H2 and
> CO2) from the land-based biomass increased with the increase in brown seaweed
> ratio, suggesting that the alkali and alkaline earth species in brown seaweed
> acted as the catalysts to enhance the gasification of land-based biomass in
> co-gasification process.
>
>
> Graphical abstract
>
>
>
> Keywords
>
> Biomass;
>
> Steam gasification;
>
> Co-gasification;
>
> Seaweed;
>
> Alkali metals;
>
> Alkaline earth metals
>
>
> --
> 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.
