Moosdorf et al paper referred to earlier is available on this public link https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/89480347/Moosdorf%20et%20al_ES%26T_2014.pdf On 26 Jan 2015 17:57, "Oliver Tickell" <[email protected]> wrote:
> It's about 1:1 by mass CO2:olivine. Theoretically you should get a bit > more CO2 but after allowances for impurities etc 1:1 is probably a better > figure. > > I would just note: there have been comments that it's not realistic to > have to shift Gt of stuff in order to sequestrate Gt of CO2. But IMHO > that's precisely what you should expect. > > Oliver. > > On 26/01/2015 16:54, Hawkins, Dave wrote: > >> Apologies if this has been answered before but what mass of olivine is >> required per ton of CO2 uptake? Mining an moving bulk material around is >> not cost free. Is the olivine to CO2 uptake ratio 1/10th that of coal to >> CO2 release ratio; 1/10000th of that; some other fraction? >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> On Jan 26, 2015, at 11:47 AM, Oliver Tickell <[email protected]< >> mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Nice idea! As Olaf has written (doubtless he can share the paper with us) >> there are areas of the North Sea with very strong tidal currents that would >> very effectively tumble any olivine gravel / sand placed on the seabed, so >> all you have to do is dump the stuff off ships into suitable areas of sea. >> >> Of course you would have to perform experiments tracking the fate of the >> gravel / sand once put there in order to justify any claims re scale and >> rates of carbon sequestration - and that's the difficult bit! >> >> Oliver. >> >> On 26/01/2015 10:49, Andrew Lockley wrote: >> >> As regards transport: costings must follow strategy. To consider the >> civil engineering : >> >> I suggest that spreading on beaches is unnecessary and logistically >> difficult. Far better to dump the material in shallow coastal waters with >> active material transport - especially where erosion threatens settlements, >> such as around much of the UK coast. It will be on the beach soon enough! >> >> Open water deposition can be done with bulk carriers (either split hull >> or conveyor / auger fed) . Plenty of ships used for transport of minerals, >> grain, bulk powders, etc are available. A better spread will be less >> harmful to marine life, so slower deposition rates will be safer. This >> suggests conveyor or auger carriers . >> >> For transport from the mine, using open river flows (if that was what was >> implied) seems irrational. Rivers would quickly silt, and local ecosystem >> effects would be disastrous. In larger rivers, barges would be viable, but >> most mines will not be near major rivers. Rail to the coast also avoids the >> need to change transport mode. Again, bulk dry materials are routinely >> transported by rail, and no innovation is required. Ports also are commonly >> fed by rail, so only track to the mine head from the nearest railway need >> be newly laid. In Europe, one is rarely more than a few dozen miles from a >> railway. A large mine will function for decades, meaning track civils costs >> are trivial. >> >> I'm happy to help publish on this. I think a paper that goes down to site >> specifics would be very useful. Engineering publications give clarity and >> precision to methods - IKEA flat-pack instructions for fixing the climate. >> >> A >> Where do you get that number of $100 per ton of CO2 captured from? You >> come close to that number if you use that silly CCS, capture CO2 from the >> chimneys of coal-fired power plants, clean it with expensive and poisonous >> chemicals and then compress it to a few hundred bars and pump it in the >> subsoil. If you use enhanced weathering of olivine you have >> $4 for the mining of bulk rock in large open-pit mines >> $2 for milling it to 100 micron >> ?? for transport and spreading (but ?? is certainly not $94); >> strategically selecting new mine sites will help to reduce costs of >> transport. >> So when you do some economic calculations, use realistic figures, Olaf >> Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf) >> >> From: [email protected]<mailto:geoengineering@ >> googlegroups.com> [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:geoeng >> [email protected]>] On Behalf Of Mike MacCracken >> Sent: zondag 25 januari 2015 17:27 >> To: Greg Rau; Geoengineering >> Subject: Re: [geo] Energy Planning and Decarbonization Technology | The >> Energy Collective >> >> Let me expand my quick description to be 90% cut in human-induced >> emissions (on top of all the natural sinks), so natural CDR does not count. >> >> And on the proposed removal industry, for $100 per ton of CO2, an awful >> lot could be done to replace fossil fuels with other sources of energy, or >> even better efficiency, a huge amount of which could be done for much less, >> if we’d try. So, nice that there is a CO2 removal approach as a backstop to >> what the cost of changing energy would be—basically, you are suggesting it >> should cost less than $100 per ton of CO2 to address the problem. With the >> new paper in Nature (lead author is a former intern that worked with me at >> the Climate Institute) that the social cost of CO2 is more than twice the >> cost of, then it makes huge economic sense to be addressing the problem. >> So, indeed, let’s get on with it—research plus actually dealing with the >> issue. >> >> Mike >> >> >> >> >> On 1/24/15, 1:40 PM, "Greg Rau" <[email protected]<http:// >> [email protected]>> wrote: >> Mike, >> If it takes "a 90% cut in CO2 to stop the rise in atmospheric >> concentration", we are already more than half way there thanks to natural >> CDR. About 55% of our CO2 emissions are mercifully removed from air via >> biotic and abiotic processes. So just 35% to go? >> As for "CDR replacing the fossil fuel industry", here's one way to do >> that: http://www.pnas.org/content/110/25/10095.full , but low fossil >> energy prices (or lack of sufficient C emissions surcharge) are unlikely to >> make this happen. Certainly agree that we need all hands and ideas on deck >> in order to stabilize air CO2. But for reasons that continue to baffle me, >> that is not happening at the policy, decision making, and R&D levels it >> needs to. >> Greg >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Mike MacCracken <[email protected]<http://[email protected] >> >> >> To: Geoengineering <[email protected]< >> http://[email protected]>> >> Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2015 9:06 AM >> Subject: Re: [geo] Energy Planning and Decarbonization Technology | The >> Energy Collective >> >> >> >> Re: [geo] Energy Planning and Decarbonization Technology | The Energy >> Collective >> In terms of an overall strategy, it takes of order a 90% cut in CO2 >> emissions to stop the rise in the atmospheric concentration, and that has >> to happen to ultimately stabilize the climate (and it would be better to >> have the CO2 concentration headed down so we don’t get to the equilibrium >> warming for the peak concentration we reach (recalling we will be losing >> sulfate cooling). >> >> Thus, to really stop the warming, CDR in its many forms has to be at >> least as large as 90% of CO2 emissions (from fossil fuels and biospheric >> losses). That is a lot of carbon to be taking out of the system by putting >> olivine into the ocean, biochar, etc. at current global emissions levels >> (that are still growing). The greater the mitigation (reduction in fossil >> fuel emissions), the more effective CDR can be—what would really be nice is >> CDR replacing the fossil fuel industry so ultimately it is as large. I’d >> suggest this is why it is really important to always be mentioning the >> importance of all the other ways, in addition to CDR, to be cutting >> emissions—that is really critical. >> >> Mike >> >> >> On 1/24/15, 10:19 AM, "Stephen Salter" <[email protected]<http://S. >> [email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Hi All >> >> Paragraph 2 mentions 'carbon negative' nuclear energy. The carbon >> emissions from a complete, working nuclear power station are mainly people >> driving to work. But digging, crushing and processing uranium ore needs >> energy and releases carbon in inverse proportion to the ore grade. There >> were some amazingly high grade ores, some once even at the critical point >> for reaction, but these have been used. Analysis by van Leeuwen concludes >> that the carbon advantage of present nuclear technology over gas is about >> three but that the break-even point comes when the ore grade drops to >> around 100 ppm. This could happen within the life of plant planned now. >> >> As we do not know how to do waste disposal we cannot estimate its >> carbon emissions. But just because we cannot calculate them does not mean >> that they are zero. >> >> Stephen >> >> >> >> Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering. >> University of Edinburgh. Mayfield Road. Edinburgh EH9 3JL. Scotland >> [email protected]<http://[email protected]> Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704 >> <tel:%2B44%20%280%29131%20650%205704> Cell 07795 203 195 >> WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs<http://WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/%7Eshs> < >> http://WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs<http://WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/%7Eshs>> YouTube >> Jamie Taylor Power for Change >> >> On 24/01/2015 14:56, Andrew Lockley wrote: >> >> >> >> >> 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<h >> ttp://carbonremoval.wordpress.com> <http://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]<http:// >> [email protected]>. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]< >> http://[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:geoeng >> [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:geoeng >> [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:geoeng >> [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:geoeng >> [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]. 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.
