Interesting!
Clearly this reaction is good in a biodigester - but does it also take
pleace in ordinary open air/water weathering? If so then it reduces the
benefit to be gained from weathering olivine, as CH4 is a powerful GHG.
Best, Oliver.
On 31/01/2015 12:39, Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf) wrote:
And if you add fine-grained olivine to the biodigester you add three
advantages:
1.You shift part of the CO2 in the biogas to the liquid as
bicarbonate. So the biogas becomes richer
2.The digester doesn’t smell anymore, because the iron in the olivine
combines with the H2S as iron sulphide
3.The absolute amount of produced methane also increases thanks to the
reaction
6 Fe2SiO4 + CO2 + 14 H2O à4 Fe3O4 + *CH4*+ 6 H4SiO4 . This reaction
is catalyzed by the fine-grained magnetite crystals that form, and has
been tested at several dutch universities. The reaction is well-known
from places where the ocean bottom is composed of olivine rocks, and
where seawater seeps into fractures, Olaf Schuiling
*From:*[email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] *On Behalf Of
*[email protected]
*Sent:* zaterdag 31 januari 2015 2:02
*To:* [email protected]; [email protected]
*Subject:* RE:
[geo]_Re:_A_graphic_to_help_map_the_Carbon_Dioxide_Removal_(“CDR”)_field_|_Deich
Noah,
Nice clear graphic. Love it.
Please add "C from N separation" within your Transformation approach.
C (carbon) from N (plant nutrients, a big one being nitrogen as
ammonia or nitrate) separation can be a fermentation or a chemical
process. The most common fermentation is anaerobic digestion (AD).
An up and coming chemical process is hydrothermal liquefaction (HL).
Both processes economically produce energy in the form of CH4 and
longer chain hydrocarbons. Both have a by-product of CO2 at about 40%
of the biogas produced. (The HL biogas production is at 200 atm and
350C, which allows for very inexpensive production of pure CH4
separate from the pure CO2.)
You should show both separation processes because they each scale much
larger than any of the three (Biomass burial, Pyrolysis, or BECCS) you
show currently. They scale larger because the plant nutrients are not
sequestered with the carbon and they are both economically viable on
the energy alone with wet biomass such as seaweed forests: as low as
1% solids for AD and as low as 10% solids for HL.
Include an arrow over to "Pure compressed CO2" from each separation
process.
Your chart will be much more complete and accurate.
Thank you
Mark E. Capron, PE
Ventura, California
www.PODenergy.org <http://www.PODenergy.org>
-------- Original Message --------
Subject:
[geo]_Re:_A_graphic_to_help_map_the_Carbon_Dioxide_Removal_(“CDR”)_field_|_Deich
From: Michael Hayes <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
Date: Fri, January 30, 2015 10:49 am
To: [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
Noah,
The statement that "...biochar can be burned to create electricity
instead of applied to soils as a carbon sink." is questionable as
biochar 'fuel' is charcoal. Only that which is buried is 'biochar'.
Yet, I believe Ron Larson (IBI) can best express this point.
Also, your mission objective of "map the most prominent aspects of
CDR" would seem to open up the effort to listing the many
important 'prominent aspect' of the biotic approach such as the
production of food, feed, fuel, fertilizer, polymers and fresh
water (etc.). In short, the biotic can pay for itself while the
non-biotic can not.
This is a profoundly important aspect which many authors in this
field ignore. We must ask ourselves if we wish climate change
mitigation to be at the whims of the political purse sting or
financially independent and based solely on the science...not the
thin ice of political popularity.
Best,
Michael
On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 10:53:49 AM UTC-8, andrewjlockley
wrote:
https://carbonremoval.wordpress.com/2015/01/22/a-graphic-to-help-map-the-carbon-dioxide-removal-cdr-field/
Everything and the Carbon Sink
Noah Deich's blog on all things Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR)
A graphic to help map the Carbon Dioxide Removal (“CDR”) field
JANUARY 22, 2015
For the carbon dioxide removal (“CDR”) field, breadth is
simultaneously a blessing and a curse. On the bright side, the
numerous approaches to CDR suggest the potential for deploying a
diverse portfolio of CDR projects that reduces both the risks and
costs of preventing climate change. But the down side of breadth
is complexity, which makes the CDR field difficult to explain and
envision, and can lead to confusion about how to catalyze
development of CDR approaches as a result.
In the graphic below, I’ve attempted to categorize and map the
most prominent aspects of CDR in as comprehensive and clear a
manner as possible:It is critical to note that not all of the
elements of this graphic are exclusive to CDR. For example, direct
air capture (“DAC”) machines can be used to create hydrocarbon
fuels (instead of for carbon sequestration purposes). In a similar
manner, biochar can be burned to create electricity instead of
applied to soils as a carbon sink. Even more broadly, compressed
CO2 can come from many places, including from fossil-fueled power
plants with carbon capture and sequestration (“CCS”) systems.
Unpacking how each of the elements for various CDR processes fit
into wider industrial systems is critical for designing effective
strategies for developing various CDR approaches — hopefully this
visualization of the field can help with that process
--
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
<http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
<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.
