Even a very low $/t price becomes a large sum when multiplied by many
Gts. The questions are surely:
1. Is it cheap compared to alternatives?
2. Is it cheap relative to the impacts of climate change and ocean
acidification? And
3. Is it affordable in the context of the global economy, and the
expenditures we have no trouble making such as those on 'security'?
Oliver
On 26/01/2015 22:28, Hawkins, Dave wrote:
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.
