Dear Mark
Some might see me as a sort of devil's advocate,but I wish to respectfully
challenge your premise that eliminating fossilfuel use is essential to
stabilise the global climate.
In terms of carbon utilisation, the problem is thatwe are adding about ten
billion tonnes and growing of carbon to the air eachyear. To stabilise the
climate, the options must include measures toremove this carbon. That requires
finding profitable uses in order to generateeconomic incentive for speed and
scale of response. Emission reductiononly reduces the amount of carbon we add,
and does nothing to remove thedangerous carbon we have already added to the air
and sea.
Carbon is used for a wide array of usefulproducts. For example road
construction uses about two billion tonnes ofasphalt every year, containing a
significant portion of carbon. If roadand building and plastic industries
could find economic ways to incorporate carbonmined from air and sea into their
construction materials, it would present a longterm sequestration method with
incentive for replication, including finding innovative new expanded uses for
carbon. Such materials could compete against land based products, serving to
enhance biodiversity and food security.
My view is that automatic ocean based algaeproduction at mega scale has
potential to provide carbon products at lower costthan mining fossil fuels.
Plastic systems can be invented which woulddrive capital and operating cost for
CDR sourcing from industrial algae down to profitable levels. Thatmeans the
focus should be on establishing such possible new technology.
Now, the reality is that the best way to achieve this goal of profitable carbon
extraction is in alliance with the fossil fuel industry, because only they have
the skillsand power and money and incentive to make it happen.
If we can use CDR as a source ofindustrial materials, we can foresee a path to
this growing to bigger than theten billion tonnes of carbon we add through
emissions, so the net effect willbe to reduce the ppm of carbon in air and sea.
And that can happen alongside ongoing fossil fuel extraction, enabling evidence
based market response to the McKibben stock price problem of energy reserve
values requiring us to cook the planet. The
ODI G20 press release puts this climate problem for the energy industry into
stark relief, with a direct attack on government subsidies for energy
exploration. The energy industry will only prosper if it supports practical
profitable ways to remove the waste it adds to the environment. Chevron's
Gorgon project could be a CDR pilot. Chevron plans to spend $2 billion to
geosequester four million tonnes of CO2 byproduct peryear as part of its $55
billion gas project. This geosequestration has negative commercial value,
whereas conversion of CO2 to algae could turn a profit, and offer a path to
sourcing carbon from air and sea. Sources
TheAsphalt Paving Industry - A Global Perspective
Chevron planto invest $2billion to bury four million tonnes of CO2 per year as
15% byproduct of LNG. I have suggesteda way to turn this CO2 into useful
hydrocarbons and related products, usingalgae and hydrothermal liquefaction.
Robert Tulip
Disclaimer: Personal Views Only.
From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Cc: geoengineering <[email protected]>; Robert Tulip
<[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, 12 November 2014, 3:50
Subject: RE: _[geo]_Does_CDR_provide_“moral_hazard”_for_a v
oiding_deep_decarbonization_of_our_economy?_|_Everything_a nd _the_Carbon_Sink
Dear Chuck,
I like to think we are all on the same team with essentially the same two
goals, 1) eliminate fossil fuel use, and 2) reduce impacts from the sudden
increase in greenhouse gases. Our emphasis between the two goals, the scale of
our efforts, and our planning horizon vary.
Might you share a description of your most promising process? We should all be
cheering however much fossil fuels you can displace. Perhaps the
PODenergy/Ocean Foresters group can help you past the limits of scale. Based
on what I have read below, you have at least two limits on scale:
1) You may cause a decrease in the commodity price of defatted algal biomass
unless your production of same is coordinated with expansion of markets. We
might help expand the fish feed market. Also, I have been pushing for someone
to develop the algae-based equivalent of Plumpy'Nut (a peanut based paste with
a long non-refrigerated shelf life ready-to-use therapeutic food.)
2) You will be exporting all the fertilizer and CO2 needed to grow more algae
with the biofuel and the defatted algal biomass. Eventually, the cost of
supplying nutrients will become too expensive. We should discuss ways to
extend the nutrient limit.
Hitting these two limits is a great problem to have!
Mark
Mark E. Capron, PE
Ventura, California
www.PODenergy.org
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: _[geo]_Does_CDR_provide_“moral_hazard”_for_a v
oiding_deep_decarbonization_of_our_economy?_|_Everything_a nd
_the_Carbon_Sink
From: "Charles H. Greene" <[email protected]>
Date: Sat, November 08, 2014 8:32 am
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Cc: geoengineering <[email protected]>, Robert
Tulip <[email protected]>
Dear Mark:
Robert Tulip’s conclusions about the “inefficiencies" of existing microalgal
cultivation methods as analysed by Beal et al. in the manuscript, "Economically
competitive algal biofuel production in a 100-ha facility: a comprehensive
techno-economic analysis and life cycle assessment,” are his interpretations,
not ours. We have conducted very rigorous techno-economic analyses and life
cycle assessments of many potential line-ups, and we are very encouraged by the
results for a few of them. I think that Robert’s reading of our manuscript was
selective, with him only seeing in it the results that confirmed his
preconceptions. Since our manuscript is currently under review, I shared it
with him under the condition that he not share or distribute it yet. Once it
has successfully passed through the peer-review process, I would be pleased to
share it with all interested parties. I would like to point out that
productivity rates to date exceed the DOE’s targets for 2018, and we envision
algal biofuels that will be cost-competitive with fossil fuels once we derive
the full value from potential co-products. One of our manuscript’s conclusions
is that algal biofuels are unlikely to be cost competitive with fossil fuels
(especially heavily subsidized ones) without deriving value from additional
co-products. From our calculations, using “defatted” algal biomass as a
nutritional supplement in animal feeds, while assuming the commodity price for
soybeans of $400/MT, results in a biofuel price of ~$8/gallon. This greatly
undervalues the algae, which has a far superior amino acid profile and other
nutritional benefits (e.g., high omega 3 fatty acid content) relative to
soybeans. Using “defatted” algal biomass as a supplement in fish feeds, while
assuming the going commodity price of $1500/MT, results in a biofuel price of
~$2.50/gallon. The prospect of using algae directly in human nutrition has even
greater economic benefits. There are lots of promising directions to go from
here, so I am disappointed that Robert has chosen to portray our findings in an
unfavorable light. For the purpose of scaling arguments, I would also like to
point out that cultivating algae in an area the size of Wyoming can produce
enough biofuel to meet the entire annual liquid-fuel transportation demand for
the US while simultaneously producing an amount of protein 5.7x the annual
global soy protein production. I believe these numbers, based on
demonstration-scale field trials, should be a reason for optimism.
Sincerely, Chuck Greene
On Nov 8, 2014, at 8:51 AM, [email protected] wrote:
Response to comments from Mark Capron Hi Mark Thanks for your
comments. My view is that microalgae is the best option for carbon dioxide
removal as a geoengineering method to stabilise the global climate, and that
the submarine storage and processing concept I have presented here should be
the most economical and technically feasible approach. Here is a summary.
Considering how carbon can best be managed in a form that is made commercially
sustainable by its value as saleable commodities, my concept is that temporary
deep ocean storage of algae presents a method able to make emission reduction
irrelevant to climate stabilisation, by producing energy at a cost below the
production cost of fossil fuels. The inefficiencies of existing algae
methods are analysed by Beal et al in their paper Economically competitive
algal biofuel production in a 100-ha facility: a comprehensive techno-economic
analysis and life cycle assessment. Charles H. Green kindly sent me this paper
in response to my comments on his post on the efforts of the Algae Biomass
Organisation. Beal et al have also written Energy Return on Investment for
Algal Biofuel Production Coupled with Wastewater Treatment. Another typical
paper on algae yield and energy return on investment is Reduction of water and
energy requirement of algae cultivation using an algae biofilm photobioreactor.
The methods described in these papers are nowhere near cost effective as
biofuel production systems able to compete with coal and gas without carbon tax
subsidy. A completely new technological paradigm is needed. I preface my
comments on the potential for such transformative technology by saying that the
concepts described below are untested and are solely my personal ideas. I
would warmly welcome any suggestions on testing methods or discussion on my
assumptions. NASA’s OMEGA system, using floating plastic bags at sea to
grow algae, presents a basis for a far more efficient biofuel production method
than algae ponds or photobioreactors, due to its ability to tap into oceanic
energy. The OMEGA system as described by NASA must be augmented by three
important innovations which together promise a new technological paradigm that
will be cost competitive. These factors are: 1. use of tide, current
and wave power to move CO2, nutrient, algae and water; 2. initial
co-location with abundant sources of CO2, nutrient and expertise and suitable
hydrogeology; 3. use of produced algae to make more factories using
methods such as bioplastic. These methods offer potential to drive
capital and operating expenditure down way below existing biofuel models in
order to enable cost competitiveness against fossil fuels when replicated and
expanded to achieve efficiency of scale.
--
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.
