Dark reduction is but one potetial tool in the imbecs tool box. I've tried to open that box to awl/biochar etc to help provide expansion of test beds. Absolute knowledge of energy/economic costs can only be obtained through trials. If dark reduction radicaly expands biomass based c neg fuel production, the corrisponding reduction in ff use should be factored into the total c equation. please also remember that avalible energy is vast and cheap within oceans once the infastructure is paid for. however, ron is correct in that the better known (photosynthetic) methods should be advanced first. best regards from mt. Baker michael Sent with Verizon Mobile Email
---Original Message--- From: "Andrew Lockley" <[email protected]> Sent: 9/18/2014 1:21 am To: "Ron Larson" <[email protected]> Cc: "RAU greg" <[email protected]>, "Michael Hayes" <[email protected]>, "Geoengineering" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Steam Co-Gasification - Brown Seaweed, Land-Based Biomass (+CCS/AWL?) All CDR schemes that reduce carbon before sequestration sacrifice the energy available from it. While we still burn carbon fuels this doesn't make sense, as you have to input energy to reduce the carbon (unless you use photosynthesis) , and sacrifice the energy available from oxidising the resulting fuel, as well as lose all the process costs and energy involved in incidental materials handling and preparation. Sequestration of oxidised carbon is fundamentally more efficient. If we really want to reduce it, releasing it from storage slowly whilst creating biochar slowly would seem a more sensible approach than the suggested scheme, and doesn't require a large technological infrastructure. A On 18 Sep 2014 03:54, "Ronal W. Larson" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > <http://jgp.rupress.org/content/26/2/241.full.pdf+html> > > 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 > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1m9VXozADC0IIE6mYx5NsnJLrUvF_fWJN_GyigCzDLn0/edit> > 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 [image: > http://www.sciencedirect.com/scidirimg/DeepDyve_SD.png] > <http://www.deepdyve.com/lp/elsevier/steam-co-gasification-of-brown-seaweed-and-land-based-biomass-GFow9VzgNi?key=elsevier> > [image: > http://www.sciencedirect.com/scidirimg/gw_rtn_ihub.gif] > <http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0378382013003913?showall=true> > DOI: > 10.1016/j.fuproc.2013.12.013 Get rights and content > <https://s100.copyright.com/AppDispatchServlet?publisherName=ELS&contentID=S0378382013003913&orderBeanReset=true> > ------------------------------ > 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 [image: Full-size image (32 K)] > <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378382013003913#fx1> > 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. > -- 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.
