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:*geoengineering@googlegroups.com
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Christoph Voelker
*Sent:* zondag 25 januari 2015 17:15
*To:* andrew.lock...@gmail.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
*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)"
<r.d.schuil...@uu.nl <mailto:r.d.schuil...@uu.nl>> 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:*geoengineering@googlegroups.com
<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
[mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com
<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>] *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 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
<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 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.
--
Christoph Voelker
Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research
Am Handelshafen 12
27570 Bremerhaven, Germany
e:christoph.voel...@awi.de <mailto:christoph.voel...@awi.de>
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 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.
