Well, firstly there has been the study of Hangx and Spiers (2009), Hangx, S. J. T., & Spiers, C. J. (2009). Coastal spreading of olivine to control atmospheric CO2 concentrations: A critical analysis of viability. /International Journal of Greenhouse Gas Control/, /3/(6), 757–767. doi:10.1016/j.ijggc.2009.07.001
who arrive at the conclusion "The feasibility of the concept depends on the rate of olivine dissolution, the sequestration capacity of the dominant reaction, and its CO2 footprint. Kinetics calculations show that offsetting 30% of worldwide 1990 CO2 emissions by beach weathering means distributing of 5.0 Gt of olivine per year. For mean seawater temperatures of 15–25 8C, olivine sand (300 mm grain size) takes 700–2100 years to reach the necessary steady state sequestration rate and is therefore of little practical value. To obtain useful, steady state CO2 uptake rates within 15–20 years requires grain sizes <10 mm. However, the preparation and movement of the required material poses major economic, infrastructural and public health questions. We conclude that coastal spreading of olivine is not a viable method of CO2 sequestration on the scale needed." I am sure that Olaf Schuiling has a different viewpoint, especially on the kinetics, but what remains independent of the kinetics is that the total amount of olivine needed to get a sizeable reduction in pCO2 growth rate is on the order of a few Gt per year.. An estimate of how much silicate minerals are mined today (to get that into perspective) is available from Phil Renforth et al. (2011) Silicate Production and Availability for Mineral Carbonation. Environ. Sci. Technol., 45, 2035–2041 And Moosdorf et al. have estimated the carbon dioxide efficiency, taking into account transportation etc: Moosdorf, Renforth and Hartmann (2014) Carbon Dioxide Efficiency of Terrestrial Enhanced Weathering, Env Sci Technol. 48, 4809−4816 So there s already a lot around.. Cheers, Christoph On 1/25/15 2:47 PM, Andrew Lockley wrote: > > 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] > <mailto:[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]> > [mailto:[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 > <http://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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to > [email protected] > <mailto:[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] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- Christoph Voelker Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research Am Handelshafen 12 27570 Bremerhaven, Germany e: [email protected] t: +49 471 4831 1848 -- 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.
