At Andrew Lockley's suggestion, I am posting what I sent him off-line. David
Well, the overburden assumption is clearly a key one. But let's accept your assumption that both the mining and the transport costs for olivine are 1/10th that of coal. That still results in a cost of 1/3 the coal investment for each ton of coal dealt with by olivine. Still not cheap. And you seem to assume that society will be fine with mining all that olivine with no remediation of the mine sites at all. That seems a questionable assumption. I am not arguing that olivine should be rejected as a tool in the toolbox; only that calling it cheap is questionable. -- 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.
