Hi Andrew--The issue is not so much the technology‹as you say there are options‹but the total mass required to make a significant difference.
Mike On 1/26/15, 5:49 AM, "Andrew Lockley" <[email protected]> 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]] > 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 we¹d > 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, let¹s 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 don¹t 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. I¹d 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/~shs> > <http://WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs> 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-hel > p-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 > > > > ³We can¹t 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.² > 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. Today¹s > approach to all-of-the-above, however, is missing a key piece: carbon dioxide > removal (³CDR²). Here¹s 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 (³CCS²) 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 > ³renewable CCS² (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 ³renewable CCS² 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. What¹s 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 ³negative²: 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 (³DAC²) devices, however, could tip the scales in nuclear¹s > favor. DAC systems that utilize the heat produced from nuclear power plants > can benefit from this ³free² 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 power¹s 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 ³prime time² ‹ 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]. 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.
