Someone needs to do a proper infrastructure study of olivine to more comprehensively rebut the "contraptionist" arguments of some in the CDR community.
Where are the mines? How many railcars? At what scale are the crushing machines? Will we distribute to beaches with lorries, or shallow seas with ships (and let longshore drift do the work)? What environmental monitoring spend is needed? Can this be used for a coastal defence win win? Etc. A On 25 Jan 2015 13:23, "Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf)" <[email protected]> wrote: > Of course I support Andrew in this view, although chucking it into the > sea is maybe a too simplistic view. My preference is to spread > (coarse-grained, so little crushing energy spent) olivine on beaches, where > the surf will crush them by grain collisions and by scraping them against > each other. In a short while (in our experiments it took 10 days to see > already a large effect, the water became opaque milky white from all the > micron-sized slivers that were knocked off). A mixture of coarser and finer > grit is more effective than a single grain size, as in society, the big > ones crush the smaller ones. *The surf is the biggest ballmill on earth, > and it is free of charge! *An extension of this method is to discharge > them in shallow seas with strong bottom currents. There are many sea > bottoms covered with pebbles, and there the same effects of crushing can be > seen. To avoid misunderstanding, the sea will not become opaque white, > slivers that form are washed away by the next wave. Within those ten day > experiments, we observed that many slivers had already been transformed to > brucite, (Mg(OH)2, known to carbonate very fast, and the pH of the water > had already been raised considerably. And yes, of course, it will take a > lot of olivine, which is fortunately the most abundant mineral on earth, > Olaf Schuiling > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Andrew Lockley > *Sent:* zaterdag 24 januari 2015 15:56 > *To:* geoengineering > *Subject:* [geo] Energy Planning and Decarbonization Technology | The > Energy Collective > > > > Poster's note : none of this explains why there's any need for > integration. Chucking olivine in the sea seems easier and cheaper than all. > > > http://theenergycollective.com/noahdeich/2183871/3-ways-carbon-removal-can-help-unlock-promise-all-above-energy-strategy > > 3 Ways Carbon Removal can Help Unlock the Promise of an All-of-the-Above > Energy Strategy > > January 24, 2015 > > “We can’t have an energy strategy for the last century that traps us in > the past. We need an energy strategy for the future – an all-of-the-above > strategy for the 21st century that develops every source of American-made > energy.”– President Barack Obama, March 15, 2012 > > An all-of-the-above energy strategy holds great potential to make our > energy system more secure, inexpensive, and environmentally-friendly. > Today’s approach to all-of-the-above, however, is missing a key > piece: carbon dioxide removal (“CDR”). Here’s three reasons why CDR is > critical for the success of an all-of-the-above energy strategy: > > 1. CDR helps unite renewable energy and fossil fuel proponents to advance > carbon capture and storage (“CCS”) projects. Many renewable energy > advocates view CCS as an expensive excuse to enable business-as-usual > fossil fuel emissions. But biomass energy with CCS (bio-CCS) projects are > essentially “renewable CCS” (previously viewed as an oxymoron), and could > be critical for drawing down atmospheric carbon levels in the future. As a > result, fossil CCS projects could provide a pathway to “renewable CCS” > projects in the future. Because of the similarities in the carbon capture > technology for fossil and bioenergy power plants, installing capture > technology on fossil power plants today could help reduce technology and > regulatory risk for bio-CCS projects in the future. What’s more, bio-CCS > projects can share the infrastructure for transporting and storing CO2 > with fossil CCS installations. Creating such a pathway to bio-CCS should be > feasible through regulations that increase carbon prices and/or biomass > co-firing mandates slowly over time, and could help unite renewable energy > and CCS proponents to develop policies that enable the development of > cost-effective CCS technology. > > 2. CDR bolsters the environmental case for nuclear power by enabling it to > be carbon “negative”: Many environmental advocates say that low-carbon > benefits of nuclear power are outweighed by the other environmental and > safety concerns of nuclear projects. The development of advanced nuclear > projects paired with direct air capture (“DAC”) devices, however, could tip > the scales in nuclear’s favor. DAC systems that utilize the heat produced > from nuclear power plants can benefit from this “free” source of energy to > potentially sequester CO2 directly from the atmosphere cost-effectively. > The ability for nuclear + DAC to provide competitively-priced, > carbon-negative energy could help convince nuclear power’s skeptics to > support further investigation into developing safe and > environmentally-friendly advanced nuclear systems. > > 3. CDR helps enable a cost-effective transition to a decarbonized > economy: Today, environmental advocates claim that prolonged use of fossil > fuels is mutually exclusive with preventing climate change, and fossil fuel > advocates bash renewables as not ready for “prime time” — i.e. unable to > deliver the economic/development benefits of inexpensive fossil energy. To > resolve this logjam, indirect methods of decarbonization — such as a > portfolio of low-cost CDR solutions — could enable fossil companies both to > meet steep emission reduction targets and provide low-cost fossil energy > until direct decarbonization through renewable energy systems become more > cost-competitive (especially in difficult to decarbonize areas such as > long-haul trucking and aviation). > > Of course, discussion about the potential for CDR to enable an > all-of-the-above energy strategy is moot unless we invest in developing a > portfolio of CDR approaches. But if we do make this investment in CDR, an > all-of-the-above energy strategy that delivers a diversified, > low-cost, and low-carbon energy system stands a greater chance of becoming > a reality. > > Noah Deich > > Noah Deich is a professional in the carbon removal field with six years of > clean energy and sustainability consulting experience. Noah currently works > part-time as a consultant for the Virgin Earth Challenge, is pursuing his > MBA from the Haas School of Business at UC Berkeley, and writes a blog > dedicated to carbon removal (carbonremoval.wordpress.com) > > > -- > 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.
