Well, you better forget the model of Hangx and Spiers, as it has no
relation to reality. They forget that grains roll on the beach and
collide and scour each other knocking off micron sized slivers, they
use weathering rates obtained in clean laboratories under exclusion of
biotic factors, and they assumed that waters of the sea do not move. I
attach a rebuttal of it (Schuiling, R. (2014) Climate Change and
CO2 Removal from the Atmosphere. Natural Science, 6, 659-663. doi:
10.4236/ns.2014.69065 <http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ns.2014.69065>). A
nice walk along the beach would have saved them a lot of wasted time.
*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Christoph Voelker
*Sent:* zondag 25 januari 2015 17:15
*To:* [email protected]; [email protected]
*Subject:* Re: [geo] Energy Planning and Decarbonization Technology |
The Energy Collective
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
<http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
<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] <mailto:[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]
<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.
