The article asks "Can Seashells Save the World". My answer is "no" if you mean saving the world from excess atmospheric CO2. The article initially states that coccolithophores convert carbon dioxide to chalk (CaCO3), while later we are told that "seashells are common because they are very effective at converting dissolved calcium carbonate which is abundant in seawater." Actually neither is the case. Shell is formed from dissolved calcium bicarbonate, not CO2 or carbonate ion, and bicarbonate ion is by far the more abundant form of carbon in the water column. Calcification removes carbon from seawater, generating additional atmospheric CO2 and additional sedimentary carbonate: Ca(HCO3)aq ---> CO2g + H2O + CaCO3s, so unclear how this is an atmospheric CO2 sink. Admittedly, if the organism doing the calcifying is a photosynthesizer like coccos, then certainly CO2 will be converted to biomass. Whether this organism then forms a net CO2 sink will very much depend on the photosynthesis/calcification ratio as well as how much if any biomass escapes respiration and sinks from surface waters of the ocean. Or am I missing something? Certainly interesting that some organisms thrive in acidic water, but then there will also be losers, meaning ecosystems will change, but not necessarily to our benefit or to other marine species. Greg
From: markcap...@podenergy.org [markcap...@podenergy.org] Sent: Sunday, November 16, 2014 8:35 AM To: Rau, Greg; gh...@sbcglobal.net; Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf); voglerl...@gmail.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [geo] Re: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly of CO2 Utilization | Everything and the Carbon Sink Greg and Olaf, What might be the minimum inputs such that we could grow and sequester seashells while rapidly recycling most of the nutrients to grow more shellfish? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/can-seashells-save-the-world-813915.html discusses "Not so, it seems, with the coccolithophore, or at least with the most abundant species, called Emiliania huxleyi. The latest study into this species shows that it appears to thrive on high levels of carbon dioxide. Instead of finding it difficult to make its calcium carbonate plates, as some scientists had expected, the organism can, in fact, make bigger and bigger plates as carbon dioxide concentrations are increased artificially, according to a study published in the current issue of the journal Science." Perhaps a more complex model of Ocean Forest would work with the carbon dioxide from the energy separation process (likely either anaerobic digestion or hydrothermal liquifaction) being sequestered as sea shells. In this case, we may have to sell the shellfish meat as food (people, pets, livestock, aquaculture fish) and import more basic nutrients or silicate minerals or calcium from a few 100-1,000 kilometers distant. Mark Mark E. Capron, PE Ventura, California www.PODenergy.org<http://www.PODenergy.org> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [geo] Re: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly of CO2 Utilization | Everything and the Carbon Sink From: "Rau, Greg" <r...@llnl.gov<mailto:r...@llnl.gov>> Date: Fri, November 14, 2014 11:54 am To: "gh...@sbcglobal.net<mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net>" <gh...@sbcglobal.net<mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net>>, "Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf)" <r.d.schuil...@uu.nl<mailto:r.d.schuil...@uu.nl>>, "voglerl...@gmail.com<mailto:voglerl...@gmail.com>" <voglerl...@gmail.com<mailto:voglerl...@gmail.com>>, "geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> Sorry, I meant "....is biology affected?" ________________________________ From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> [geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>] on behalf of Greg Rau [gh...@sbcglobal.net<mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net>] Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 10:46 AM To: Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf); voglerl...@gmail.com<mailto:voglerl...@gmail.com>; geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: [geo] Re: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly of CO2 Utilization | Everything and the Carbon Sink Olaf, My preference is to make ocean alkalinity, dissolved Ca(HCO3)2 (and some CaCO3aq via equilibrium reactions), rather than solid CaCO3. Yes, you can use silicates to do this, but if you have elevated CO2 (FF or BE flue gas) and limestone/waste shell, the kinetics are faster. As for just putting minerals directly into the ocean for CDR, it would be interesting add equal equivalences (2x and 1x respectively) of equal sized CaCO3 and Mg2SiO4 particles to separate beakers of sterilized seawater, agitate for a week in the dark, and then compare the resulting SW alkalinity to each other and to initial (and to agitated seawater without added minerals). Repeat without sterilization and in full light. Which treatments make the most alkalinity and does biology matter and/or is biology effected? ;-) BTW congrats on the NYT spread. Let's hope some balance, sanity and open mindedness can be injected into the CDR debate. Greg ________________________________ From: "Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf)" <r.d.schuil...@uu.nl<mailto:r.d.schuil...@uu.nl>> To: "'gh...@sbcglobal.net<mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net>'" <gh...@sbcglobal.net<mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net>>; "voglerl...@gmail.com<mailto:voglerl...@gmail.com>" <voglerl...@gmail.com<mailto:voglerl...@gmail.com>>; "geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>> Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 1:05 AM Subject: RE: [geo] Re: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly of CO2 Utilization | Everything and the Carbon Sink Why first destroy CaCO3 and then remake it. Just add fine-grained olivine to add sufficient alkalinity, Olaf Schuiling From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Greg Rau Sent: donderdag 13 november 2014 18:07 To: voglerl...@gmail.com<mailto:voglerl...@gmail.com>; geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: [geo] Re: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly of CO2 Utilization | Everything and the Carbon Sink As I mentioned on Oct 7, in looking for large scale uses of CO2, how about environmental applications? By my reconning, the mean 0.1 decline in surface ocean pH translates into a calcium carbonate saturation state decline of 1 unit. To return this to pre-industrial levels we'd need to use 250 - 300 GT of CO2 to make enough dissolved calcium bicarbonate/carbonate which when added to the ocean would return saturation to pre-industrial levels. There may be analogies for countering soil and freshwater acidity. Anyway, plenty of need for inorganic carbonaceous materials and relatively easy to make from CO2, but paying customer demand/ government policy would obviously have to be developed. How much do we value shellfish, corals and the other biota being impacted? Greg ________________________________ From: Michael Hayes <voglerl...@gmail.com<mailto:voglerl...@gmail.com>> To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 1:57 PM Subject: [geo] Re: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly of CO2 Utilization | Everything and the Carbon Sink [ND1] The concept of CO2 utilization goes something like this: instead of releasing CO2 into the atmosphere through industrial processes, we could instead capture CO2 from smokestacks (and/or the ambient atmosphere) and use this CO2 to manufacture carbon-based products — such as fuels, food, and construction materials. So what role might CO2 utilization play in fighting climate change? The outlook seems mixed, as explained below. The Good:Cost-effective CO2 utilization has a number of interesting implications. First, if CO2 capture costs could come down significantly, existing markets for carbon-based products could drive reductions in carbon emission without the need for pesky-to-implement large-scale GHG regulations. Even with today’s CO2 capture and utilization technology, a number of companies are successfully turning would-be CO2 emissions into valuable end products. (My highlight) [MH1] The CO2 capture costs, through micro/macro algal cultivation, are extremely low and uses simplistic technology. Noah's reductionist view of the 'capture' aspects has the primary drawback of not taking into account the full environmental and economic systems view. In that, the use of algal cultivation offers a substantial list of ancillary environmental and economic benefits. The list of benefits have been presented, in detail, before and I'll only mention the top three here. 1) The biomass waste stream from the algal cultivation can be used as a feed stock for aquacultural feed production which can, in turn, replace the natural (wild caught) fish protein used in the global aquacultural sector. This is no small issue at the overall environmental level as the current use of wild caught protein represents around 50% of the total global wild catch. The profoundly damaging effects of our current fishing industry, the fish feed issue being one of the most damaging, has a profound impact on the overall health of our oceans including, but not limited to, natural CO2 removal, utilization and sequestration. 2) The full spectrum of non-fuel products, which algal cultivation offers, has a market value which eclipse that of the algal derived bio-fuel. Thus, it is plausible to use the economic strength of of the non-fuel profits to subsidize the price of the algal bio-fuel below that of FFs. Thus, FF prices can be driven below that of the cost of extraction. This scenario offers the most direct means for ending the FF era. 3) One of the most important by-products of large scale marine algal bio-reactor farms is fresh water. The current global need for vast amounts of freshwater, in of itself, represents a cash flow potential which would be capable of paying all algal cultivation costs. This systems view/approach is well within current technology and well within the ability of what can be one rather simplistic organization. We need to focus upon ending, not enabling, further FF use while working with the FF industry during the transition from FFs to BFs. This systems approach to a wide spectrum of environmental damage mitigation is the objective of the work being developed within the IMBECS Protocol Draft. [ND2] Above: The Skyonic “Sky Mine” CO2 utilization facility in San Antonio, TX.Companies like Skyonic, CarbonCure, Solidia, and Newlight Technologies all show the great potential for this field to drive GHG emission reductions without the need to monetize carbon savings through regulatory programs. Above: Newlight Technologies has created plastic building blocks from waste GHG emissions from landfills. The Bad:The main problem with CO2 utilization today is economics. For one, CO2 from naturally occurring underground reservoirs costs about $10-$20/t, where as capturing would-be CO2 emissions from power plants costs 5x-10x that amount. Capturing CO2 from industrial facilities that produce goods like ethanol or ammonia is more cost competitive, but such industrial facilities can only supply a limited amount of CO2 compared to the 10B+t/year of CO2 that the power sector produces. Companies like Inventys are making great innovations to drive down these costs of capture, but technology still has a fairly long way to develop before it is competitive with naturally occurring CO2. Another factor holding CO2 utilization back is that, even if CO2 was incredibly inexpensive to capture, it still might not be cost-effective to build products out of CO2. For example, right now, fuels remain considerably less expensive to extract from the ground than to synthesize from CO2. As a result, we will have to drive down not only the cost of CO2 capture (and transport), but also that of manufacturing processes that utilize CO2 in order to make CO2 utilization cost effective.Without cost reductions in CO2 capture technologies, CO2 utilization is only likely to make a small dent in annually GHG emissions. But while these economic challenges are significant, large-scale R&D programs for innovative CO2 capture technologies could change these economic fundamentals in a major way. The field of CO2 utilization seems similar in many way to the field of solar energy back in the 80s: in the 80s, we had solar technologies that worked, but they made poor businesses in most cases. 30 years of aggressive R&D later, solar is now challenging fossil fuels on an unsubsidized basis in many regions — CCS could follow a similar trajectory with the right investments in R&D and regulatory support. [MH2] It is! And, as briefly explained above, utilizing the abundant profits from the non-biofuel commodities, to subsidize the price of the biofuel, makes algal biofuel highly competitive. [ND3] The Ugly:Where it just doesn’t seem like the numbers will ever truly be in the favor of CO2 utilization is when it comes to carbon dioxide removal (CDR). With CDR growing increasingly necessary, it would be great if CO2 utilization in carbon-sequestering end products (e.g. products that we make with CO2 and then don’t turn immediately back into CO2 emissions — such as fuels) could provide significant negative emissions potential. [MH3] Although the marine algal cultivation/biofuel/furtilizer path offers vast potential, due to the shear size and economy of the marine environment, we currently have a fledgling example of a agro crop carbon negative biofuel production in Cool Planet<http://www.coolplanet.com/>. [ND4] Above: The Climate Institute “Moving Below Zero” report. The potential for CDR from such carbon-sequestering products, however, looks fairly limited today. The markets for three of the major carbon-based products — cement, plastics, and timber (when sustainably harvested and used for other purposed besides energy production) — are fairly modest in overall size in comparison to the prodigious ~35B tonnes of CO2 we emit into the atmosphere annually as “waste.” The above graphic show how much CO2-equivalent is consumed each year with these various end products. The graphic below translates this into the potential for these as a CO2 sink today and in 2100 (assuming 2% annual growth):Links to sources: cement, plastics, timber. The bottom line is that by the end of the century, we will need a lot more than just carbon-sequestering end products to prevent climate change — we’ll also need large scale decarbonization of the economy. Such decarbonization might rely on CO2 utilization for fuel synthesis, but it also means that we will need to pursue other ways to sequester CO2 emissions, such as by storing carbon in soils through farming techniques or fertilizers, or injecting it underground to monetize potential carbon programs.So<http://programs.So> while it looks like CO2 utilization will make incremental gains in the fight against climate change, it doesn’t look like we will be able to innovate our way entirely out of our GHG emissions problem, and that some form of regulation will likely be needed to contain global warming. [MH4] That is exactly what carbon negative biofuel does for us (i.e. decarbonize) with the added benefit of being able to utilize the current distribution and centralized commercial (combustion) power plants. As to the need for regulatory restrictions on GHG emissions, that will be far more difficult than rapidly expanding agro and mariculture; the use of biochar/olivine; adopting wide spread use of algal derived organic fertilizer; and offering the FF industry a biofuel substitute for their FF reserves/distribution matrix. In all, Noah's work on this carbon negative issue is not unlike many I've run across over the last year. The subject is not simplistic and it is easy to focus upon the reductionist view of the separate technologies as opposed to struggling with the broader and far more complex global scale ecological/economic/societal systems view. In brief, I look forward to reading Noah's views when the 'global systems view' light eventually flicks on. Best regards, Michael On Tuesday, November 11, 2014 6:33:10 PM UTC-8, andrewjlockley wrote: http://carbonremoval. wordpress.com/2014/11/08/the- good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-of- co2-utilization/<http://carbonremoval.wordpress.com/2014/11/08/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-of-co2-utilization/> Everything and the Carbon Sink Noah Deich's blog on all things Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly of CO2 Utilization NOVEMBER 8, 2014 The concept of CO2 utilization goes something like this: instead of releasing CO2 into the atmosphere through industrial processes, we could instead capture CO2 from smokestacks (and/or the ambient atmosphere) and use this CO2 to manufacture carbon-based products — such as fuels, food, and construction materials. So what role might CO2 utilization play in fighting climate change? The outlook seems mixed, as explained below. The Good:Cost-effective CO2 utilization has a number of interesting implications. First, if CO2 capture costs could come down significantly, existing markets for carbon-based products could drive reductions in carbon emission without the need for pesky-to-implement large-scale GHG regulations. Even with today’s CO2 capture and utilization technology, a number of companies are successfully turning would-be CO2 emissions into valuable end products. Above: The Skyonic “Sky Mine” CO2 utilization facility in San Antonio, TX.Companies like Skyonic, CarbonCure, Solidia, and Newlight Technologies all show the great potential for this field to drive GHG emission reductions without the need to monetize carbon savings through regulatory programs. Above: Newlight Technologies has created plastic building blocks from waste GHG emissions from landfills. The Bad:The main problem with CO2 utilization today is economics. For one, CO2 from naturally occurring underground reservoirs costs about $10-$20/t, where as capturing would-be CO2 emissions from power plants costs 5x-10x that amount. Capturing CO2 from industrial facilities that produce goods like ethanol or ammonia is more cost competitive, but such industrial facilities can only supply a limited amount of CO2 compared to the 10B+t/year of CO2 that the power sector produces. Companies like Inventys are making great innovations to drive down these costs of capture, but technology still has a fairly long way to develop before it is competitive with naturally occurring CO2. Another factor holding CO2 utilization back is that, even if CO2 was incredibly inexpensive to capture, it still might not be cost-effective to build products out of CO2. For example, right now, fuels remain considerably less expensive to extract from the ground than to synthesize from CO2. As a result, we will have to drive down not only the cost of CO2 capture (and transport), but also that of manufacturing processes that utilize CO2 in order to make CO2 utilization cost effective.Without cost reductions in CO2 capture technologies, CO2 utilization is only likely to make a small dent in annually GHG emissions. But while these economic challenges are significant, large-scale R&D programs for innovative CO2 capture technologies could change these economic fundamentals in a major way. The field of CO2 utilization seems similar in many way to the field of solar energy back in the 80s: in the 80s, we had solar technologies that worked, but they made poor businesses in most cases. 30 years of aggressive R&D later, solar is now challenging fossil fuels on an unsubsidized basis in many regions — CCS could follow a similar trajectory with the right investments in R&D and regulatory support. The Ugly:Where it just doesn’t seem like the numbers will ever truly be in the favor of CO2 utilization is when it comes to carbon dioxide removal (CDR). With CDR growing increasingly necessary, it would be great if CO2 utilization in carbon-sequestering end products (e.g. products that we make with CO2 and then don’t turn immediately back into CO2 emissions — such as fuels) could provide significant negative emissions potential. Above: The Climate Institute “Moving Below Zero” report. The potential for CDR from such carbon-sequestering products, however, looks fairly limited today. The markets for three of the major carbon-based products — cement, plastics, and timber (when sustainably harvested and used for other purposed besides energy production) — are fairly modest in overall size in comparison to the prodigious ~35B tonnes of CO2 we emit into the atmosphere annually as “waste.” The above graphic show how much CO2-equivalent is consumed each year with these various end products. The graphic below translates this into the potential for these as a CO2 sink today and in 2100 (assuming 2% annual growth):Links to sources: cement, plastics, timber. The bottom line is that by the end of the century, we will need a lot more than just carbon-sequestering end products to prevent climate change — we’ll also need large scale decarbonization of the economy. Such decarbonization might rely on CO2 utilization for fuel synthesis, but it also means that we will need to pursue other ways to sequester CO2 emissions, such as by storing carbon in soils through farming techniques or fertilizers, or injecting it underground to monetize potential carbon programs.So<http://programs.So> while it looks like CO2 utilization will make incremental gains in the fight against climate change, it doesn’t look like we will be able to innovate our way entirely out of our GHG emissions problem, and that some form of regulation will likely be needed to contain global warming. -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
