Thanks Oliver. Burning a ton of coal releases about 3 tons of CO2. Unless I am missing something, it would take a 3 tons of olivine to handle the CO2 released by each ton of coal. Assuming mining and transport costs are similar for the two minerals, olivine would not be a cheap option
Typed on tiny keyboard. Caveat lector. > On Jan 26, 2015, at 12:58 PM, 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:[email protected]> >> [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[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://[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<http://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:[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. >> -- >> 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. > > -- 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.
