Ron,
If your objective is only to help stabilize or reduce air CO2 then one air CO2 
removal system is as good (or bad) as another, all else being equal (e.g., as 
treated by Sabine et al.). However, CDR systems that removal excess CO2 from 
the ocean instead of or in addition to air help reduce the excess CO2 load in 
the ocean that otherwise will be very slow to be removed by air removal alone 
and whose negative chemical imprint will otherwise be long lasting, as Sabine 
et al show. Excess ocean CO2 can be removed (actually transformed) via 
alkalinity addition. The addition of this could be taylored to effect removal 
of excess CO2 from air, ocean or some combination via addition to surface 
waters that are otherwise naturally CO2-undersaturated or -supersaturated, 
respectively, relative to air. Alkalinity addition can also be used to (help) 
rebalance pH, CO2, and carbonate saturation state in subsurface waters if that 
is your concern (as in the case of Sabine et
 al.).

Another (geo)chemistry based CO2 removal system that would directly benefit 
ocean chemistry would be to react waste CO2 streams with mineral carbonate and 
(sea)water to capture and convert the CO2 to ocean alkainity (Rau and Caldeira 
1999). If your waste stream is derived from biomass combustion, then you have 
an air CO2 capture and storage system generating ocean alkalinity, in contrasts 
to oh-so-popular BECCS that simply stuffs the CO2 in the ground, with no 
additional environmental benefit.

I could go on, that's my thinking in brief.

Greg
--------------------------------------------
On Tue, 8/11/15, Ronal W. Larson <[email protected]> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [geo] Long-term response of oceans to CO2 removal from the 
atmosphere
 To: [email protected]
 Cc: "Sabine Mathesius" <[email protected]>, "Geoengineering" 
<[email protected]>
 Date: Tuesday, August 11, 2015, 2:44 PM
 
 Greg:
  cc Sabine and list
     Can you give your own cite
 or two to support this sentence from below?
  “I also think that your
 modeling could make a strong case that CDR that generates
 ocean alkalinity is the preferred CDR
 method.”
     I have been thinking that
 every molecule (or tonne or Gigaton of C) taken from the
 atmosphere has the same impact (all being quite quick) on
 ocean acidity/alkalinity.  So I would think cost is the
 main criterion, assuming no major negative down
 sides.
 Ron
 
 On Aug 11, 2015, at 2:36
 PM, Greg Rau <[email protected]>
 wrote:
 I'm with you on the idea that there is no
 better way to manage GHG's and their impact than to
 reduct GHG emissions. Thanks for pointing this out. But if
 we continue to fail to adequately reduce emissions,
 wouldn't CDR be better than no action at all, as you
 modeling shows? And what is the better alternative to CDR
 for mitigating all of the CO2 that has already been and will
 be emitted (and associated climate and ocean effects) before
 we get to zero emissions? 
 
 I also think that your modeling could make a
 strong case that CDR that generates ocean alkalinity is the
 preferred CDR method. How about modeling the ocean chem
 recovery rate when 5Gt or 25 Gt CO2/yr are consumed via via
 enhanced mineral weathering and the resulting alkalinity
 added to the ocean? Get in touch if you want to collaborate
 on this.
 
 Greg
 
 --------------------------------------------
 On Sat, 8/8/15, Sabine Mathesius <[email protected]>
 wrote:
 
  Subject: Re: [geo]
 Long-term response of oceans to CO2 removal from the
 atmosphere
  To: "Greg Rau" <[email protected]>,
 "geoengineering" <[email protected]>
  Cc: [email protected]
  Date: Saturday, August 8, 2015, 9:10 AM
 
  Hi, just a short
  clarification:
 
  The main
  point of our study
 is not that CDR is useless, but that it
  is
 
  not effective enough to counteract
  business as usual CO2 emissions. Our 
  results stress, once again, that there is
 no
  alternative to immediate 
  emissions
  reduction - CDR can
 be deployed as a supplemental measure
  (and
 
  maybe it should), but it would not be
  effective enough to reverse severe 
  changes
  caused by a delay in
 emissions reduction.
 
  On
 alkalinity addition: How
  likely is it that
 we would be able to do 
  this on a global
 scale? I could imagine that
  alkalinity
 addition might 
  be a way to
  protect a coral reef, being deployed locally,
 but globally?
 
  I guess it
 would be much harder to do than
  atmospheric
 CDR and you would 
  have to be
  very careful how much alkalinity you add and
 how often, to
 
  not further
 stress marine organisms? As far
  as I know,
 there are hardly 
  any studies on
  this?
 
  (By
 the way, our
  study is not only about ocean
 acidification, but also 
  about warming and
 oxygen depletion.)
 
 
 Best,
 
  Sabine
 
 
 
  On 08/08/15 12:50 am, Greg Rau wrote:
 If the goal is to
 restore ocean chemistry,
  it
 would indeed seem inherently inefficient to do so via CO2
  removal from air.  Better to remove excess
 CO2 from the
  ocean by chemical,
 geochemical, or biological means (1), my
 
 favorite being alkalinity addition.
 
  Secondly, according to the IPCC
 (2) and now UNEP (3),  RCP
  2.6 scenarios
 cannot be achieved without CDR  -  in the
 
 UNEP estimate, 300 Gts CO2 worth by 2100. So while I
  don't think anyone is asking CDR to do all
 of the heavy
  lifting, it would appear that
 at least some CDR is essential
  to achieve
 RCP 2.6 and probably even less ambitious
 
 scenarios, depending on when/if we ever get serious about
  emissions reduction.  What then is the point
 of dissing CDR
  if emissions reduction alone
 isn't going to save the
  ocean and the
 planet either?
 
 1) http://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007/978-94-007-5784-4_54
 2) http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter06_FINAL.pdf
 3) http://www.unep.org/emissionsgapreport2014/
 
 Greg
  
    
 
 
 --------------------------------------------
 On Mon, 8/3/15, Andrew
 Lockley <[email protected]>
  wrote:
 
    Subject: [geo] Long-term
  response of oceans to CO2 removal
 from the atmosphere
    To:
 
 "geoengineering" <[email protected]>
    Date: Monday,
 August 3, 2015,
  1:02 PM
    
     http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2729.html
    
    Long-term response
 of oceans
  to CO2 removal from
 the
    atmosphere
    
    Sabine Mathesius,1, 2,
    Matthias Hofmann,1,
    Ken Caldeira3,
    & Hans Joachim
  Schellnhuber1, 4,
    
    Nature Climate Change
  (2015):
    doi:10.1038/nclimate2729
     Published online 03 August 2015
    
    Abstract
    
    Carbon dioxide
 removal (CDR)
  from the
 atmosphere has been
    proposed as
    a
 measure for mitigating
  global
 warming and ocean
    acidification. To
    assess the extent to which
  CDR might eliminate the
    long-term
    consequences of anthropogenic
  CO2 emissions in the marine
    environment,
    we simulate the effect of two
  massive CDR interventions with
    CO2
    extraction rates of 5 GtC
  yr−1 and 25 GtC yr−1,
    respectively,
 while
    CO2 emissions follow the
  extended RCP8.5 pathway. We
 falsify
    two
    hypotheses: the first being
  that CDR can restore
    pre-industrial
    conditions in the ocean by
  reducing the atmospheric CO2
    concentration
    back to its pre-industrial
  level, and the second being
 that
    high
 CO2
    emissions rates (RCP8.5)
  followed by CDR have long-term
    oceanic
    consequences that are similar
  to those of low emissions
    rates
    (RCP2.6). Focusing on pH,
  temperature and dissolved
 oxygen,
    we
 find
    that even after several
  centuries of CDR deployment,
 past
    CO2
    emissions would leave a
  substantial legacy in the
 marine
    environment.
    
    --
    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.
 
 
 
 -- 
 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.
 

-- 
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.

Reply via email to