Dr. Hori et al.,
I found your work to be the most articulate view of the potential for a
global scale C-neg regimen using the BECCS concept. I would like to ask
your permission to reference your paper within a C-neg marine based
infrastructure/investment concept which I'm currently working on. In
brief, it is my view that using the many forms of marine based renewable
energy for the production/processing/refinement of marine biomass, as
opposed to land based energy (and other land resources), may offer the
easiest path to truly large scale C-neg infrastructure investment.
Further, the deployment of such large scale marine based C-neg
infrastructure can also help address other pressing global issues,
beyond the need for biofuels and biochar, inter alia the production of
food, feed, organic fertilizer, polymers, pharma, and even the
production of freshwater. This list is not exhaustive.
The list of potential marine biomass based downstream products is
extensive and growing as new marine biomass based inventions and science
emerge. Thus, based upon currently available technology and scientific
knowledge, large scale investments may potentially be attracted to a
marine based C-neg regime sooner than vast scale land based BECCS
options. Once large scale marine BECCS production and a reasonable
investment return are both proven out, large scale investments in land
based nuclear energy based BECCS may become much easier to secure.
There may be another technical option. China is currently committed to
the development of and deployment of a rather large fleet of marine
based nuclear plants. Coupling such marine based power infrastructure
with marine BECCS would make many of the drawbacks currently found
within the land based BECCS concept /simply moot/. Importantly, the
addition of the profits generated by the many potential downstream
marine based products, beyond biofuel and biochar, can help ensure a
reasonable return on the overall investments. We have to face the fact
that both biofuel and biochar are low margin products and both product
streams need the benefits from additional profit streams.
To conclude, your work on the nuclear powered BECCS option should be
considered as being central within the overall BECCS discussion due to
its articulation, scope, and comprehensiveness. Expanding the work to
include the marine space, and the vast resources which our great seas
and even the high seas offer all of us, may also be worth accepting as a
central idea as you point out in your paper /**/"The task of removing CO
2 and supplying fuel is a gigantic international public-works project,
andit would evolve into creating new big environment/energy
businesses.". If this effort is to reach the needed scale, it will
require relatively secure and prosperous investment options at both the
initial stage of deployment as well as for generations to come. I
believe marine based BECCS has the potential for early stage success
which can pave the way for a long-term (generational) mix of BECCS
options...including the nuclear.
Best regards,
Michael
On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 10:57:46 PM UTC-7, mhori wrote:
I tried to construct a Carbon Negative Energy System, which enables the
CDR and energy supply integrally, by full use of available ‘clean’
(non-carbon emitting) energy sources – renewable (biomass, solar, wind,
hydro, etc.) and nuclear energies. The executive summary of this report
was distributed to this list October last year, and the copy can be
downloaded from below;
"CARBON-NEGATIVE ENERGY SYSTEM -- Sustainable World Energy Supply and
Global Environment Restoration Using Renewable and Nuclear Energies"
(2015)
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/mh/u/HoriCNES_ES.pdf
<http://www.ne.jp/asahi/mh/u/HoriCNES_ES.pdf>
The concept is as follows;
C: Carbon in biomass, typically C6H10O5
By the carbonization of biomass;
C (biomass) -> C (biochar) + C (volatile)
C (biochar) is up to a half of C (biomass) in usual carbonization
process, and this biochar acts as the CDR.
By the steam gasification process of the remaining C (volatile) ;
C (volatile) + H2O -> CO + H2
This [CO + H2] (Syngas or synthesis gas) is used as important
industrial
resources (for process and energy).
Syngas can also be used to produce hydrocarbons (CH2 in constituent
ratio) such as diesel oil, which could replace petroleum products for
transportation and other fields as ‘clean’ fuels.
A typical process is the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis as follows;
CO + 2H2 -> CH2 + H2O
In the above processes, the steam gasification process is a strong
endothermic reaction which needs large heat (131 kJ/mol). This heat can
be supplied from biomass itself by combusting part of it, but if the
heat is supplied by nuclear energy, the effective carbon removal amount
(by both biochar and biofuel) can be increased about 60% compared to
biomass-only process when processing the same amount of biomass.
It would be crucial to increase the ratio of CDR amount to the
processed
biomass amount when the available global biomass resources are limited,
and this biomass-nuclear synergistic process will be useful for such
circumstances.
By the way, as the heat supplied to the endothermic reaction will be
contained in the heat of combustion of products, the nuclear heat is
effectively converted to a part of the heat of fuel, deducting heat
loss
during the processes.
A quantitative image of global carbon/energy balance in Year2065 by
this
Carbon Negative Energy System is shown in the attached figure.
Masao Hori
Nuclear Systems Association, Japan
Tel: (81) 90-9683-1132
Email: [email protected] <javascript:>
----------------------------
Greg Rau wrote on 2016/04/21 10:27:
> I assumed that we are talking about negative emissions energy
> production. Unclear how biochar fits in here, unless someone has
> figured out: biomass ---> biochar + energy (essential burning the
> hydrogen rather than the carbon). If $100/tonne CO2 is a
showstopper for
> negative emissions energy, then why is $100/tonne CCS as applied
to BE
> the darling of this field? The energy penalty for CCS is on the
order of
> 30% of convention energy production. (Can we really afford to
increase
> land,water, nutrient use by 30% over standard BE to accommodate CCS?)
> The energy penalty for adding C-negatvity to electrolytic H2
production
> may be <5% and does not require BE or land use (OK some mining
required).
> Greg
>
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Ronal W. Larson <[email protected] <javascript:>>
> *To:* RAU greg <[email protected] <javascript:>>;
Geoengineering
> <[email protected] <javascript:>>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 20, 2016 7:55 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] March temperature smashes 100-year global
record
>
> Greg and list
>
> My emphasis was intended to be on the words “low cost”. Your
> papers have talked about $100/tonne CO2. Biochar is growing
quite
> rapidly with no present subsidies - mostly because of paybacks
(even
> in year 1) in reduced irrigation and fertilization costs and
> increased productivity. Only a few receiving financial benefits
> from voluntary CDR payments today.
>
> Ron
>
>
>> On Apr 19, 2016, at 5:06 PM, Greg Rau <[email protected]
<javascript:>
>> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>> wrote:
>>
>> Ron,
>> As for your point 4, the C negative H2 I'm talking about is
>> powered by renewable electricity (or nuclear).
>> The basic idea is: H2O + base minerals + CO2 + renewable Vdc
--->
>> H2 + O2 + dissolved mineral bicarbonates (+ SiO2 if present).
>> e.g. silicates -
>> 4CO2g + 4H2O + Mg2SiO4s + Vdc ----> 2H2g + O2g + Mg2+ +
4HCO3- +
>> SiO2s
>> e.g. carbonates:
>> CO2g + 2H2O + CaCO3s + Vdc ---->H2g + 1/2O2g + Ca2+ + 2HCO3-
>> See the links I listed earlier.
>> Furthermore, the energy cost of adding this CDR to
electrolytic H2
>> production is theoretically near zero because bicarbonation of
>> minerals is exothermic. CO2 consumed per H2 generated ranges
from
>> 22 to 44 (tonnes/tonne).
>> G
>>
>>
>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* Ronal W. Larson <[email protected] <javascript:>
>> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>>
>> *To:* RAU greg <[email protected] <javascript:>
<mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>>
>> *Cc:* Stephen Salter <[email protected] <javascript:>
>> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>>; Geoengineering
>> <[email protected] <javascript:>
>> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 19, 2016 3:21 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [geo] March temperature smashes 100-year
global
>> record
>>
>> Greg, Stephen, list
>>
>> 1. Re Stephen’s idea: Sounds like an idea where the next
>> step will have to be by the US air force (or someone’s
>> military). Starting with 200 passenger designs wouldn’t
seem
>> to go very far.
>>
>> 2. I have nothing against H2 for lighter than air craft
- but
>> Helium should be considered as well. I believe we are still
>> venting a lot.
>>
>> 3. To get back onto the CDR aspects of this list (and costs
>> lower than $100/tonne CO2) - there are companies talking
>> co-products of biochar and jet fuel. Not happening now (I
>> gather) because oil is $40/barrel - not the anticipated
$100/bbl.
>>
>> 4. Is anyone talking about low cost CDR starting with
either
>> solar, wind, hydro, geothermal or other RE electric?
Seems to
>> me it has to be biochar.
>>
>> Ron
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 18, 2016, at 11:40 AM, Greg Rau
<[email protected] <javascript:>
>>> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks, Stephen, that's a wonderful segway for our negative
>>> emissions H2:
>>> http://www.pnas.org/content/110/25/10095.full
<http://www.pnas.org/content/110/25/10095.full>
>>> http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b00875
<http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b00875>
>>> Happy to provide all of the supergreen H2 you need (for
a price).
>>>
>>> As for H2 aircraft and the landing problem, how about
>>> zeppelins? I know that Hindenberg incident over here last
>>> century didn't help this technology (the Led Zepplin album
>>> cover (not to mention what as inside) influenced an entire
>>> generation), but why not put H2 to use both for lift and
for
>>> propulsion? Zepplins would also seem to satisfy Prof.
>>> Northcott's desire for more civilized travel (his Action
Item
>>> 11 below).
>>>
>>> Then there is Plan C - rockets. Rockets can use H2 as fuel,
>>> and Mr. Musk has now demonstrated the soft vertical landing
>>> of such. Was that landing on a rolling barge in the open
>>> ocean the most amazing engineering feat ever, or is it just
>>> me? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8Ij4FwO0nI
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8Ij4FwO0nI>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Greg
>>>
>>>
>>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *From:* Stephen Salter <[email protected] <javascript:>
>>> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>>
>>> *To:* [email protected] <javascript:>
>>> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>
>>> *Sent:* Monday, April 18, 2016 2:23 AM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [geo] March temperature smashes 100-year
>>> global record
>>>
>>> Hi All
>>> One more possible option would be to use hydrogen for
>>> aircraft fuel. It has a great weight advantage but
also
>>> a severe volume disadvantage. This could be partly
>>> overcome if we remove the landing gear and have planes
>>> landing on ground vehicles.The landing gear on an
Airbus
>>> 380 weighs the same as 200 passengers and their
luggage.
>>> A note with sketches is attached.
>>> Stephen
>>> Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of
>>> Engineering, University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road,
>>> Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland [email protected]
<javascript:>
>>> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>, Tel +44
(0)131 650 5704, Cell
>>> 07795 203 195, WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs
<http://WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs>
>>> <http://www.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs
<http://www.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs>>, YouTube Jamie Taylor
>>> Power for Change
>>> On 18/04/2016 06:38, Greg Rau wrote:
>>>> Dear Michael,
>>>> Yes, we need "moral alternatives to the present
>>>> madness", but just in case all of those suggested
aren't
>>>> adopted in the next few decades it would seem immoral
>>>> not to at least hope for additional options just in
case
>>>> 1-11 don't pan out in time. As for crossing the the
>>>> "large scale", "totalitarian" and "public debt"
>>>> thresholds, something tells me that it's going to
take
>>>> some very large scale, draconian implementation to
>>>> execute 1-11 in the dwindling time remaining, and many
>>>> of these activities will require capital and
investment
>>>> from somewhere.
>>>> Meanwhile, natural CDR seems to be doing a good job
>>>> consuming more than half of our CO2 emissions and
>>>> actually reversing the air CO2 rise for a period each
>>>> year*. So given this positive example and the task we
>>>> face, how immoral might it be to see if there are safe
>>>> and cost effectively ways to increase or add to this
>>>> natural CO2 uptake process just in case our journey on
>>>> more virtuous paths to a stable planet proves to take
>>>> longer than demanded by the recently lowered and oh so
>>>> moral 1.5 Deg C warming limit?
>>>>
>>>>
*<https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_two_years.pdf
<https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_two_years.pdf>>https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_two_years.pdf
<https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_two_years.pdf>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Greg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> *From:* NORTHCOTT Michael <[email protected]
<javascript:>>
>>>> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>
>>>> *To:* "[email protected] <javascript:>"
>>>> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>
>>>> <[email protected] <javascript:>>
>>>> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>
>>>> *Cc:* "[email protected] <javascript:>"
<mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>
>>>> <[email protected] <javascript:>>
<mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>;
>>>> "[email protected] <javascript:>"
>>>> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>
>>>> <[email protected] <javascript:>>
>>>> <mailto:[email protected]
<javascript:>>; Greg Rau
>>>> <[email protected] <javascript:>>
<mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>;
>>>> James Hansen <[email protected] <javascript:>>
>>>> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>; P.
Wadhams
>>>> <[email protected] <javascript:>>
<mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>; John
>>>> Topping <[email protected] <javascript:>>
>>>> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>;
Robert Corell
>>>> <[email protected] <javascript:>>
>>>> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>;
Peter R Carter
>>>> <[email protected] <javascript:>>
<mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>
>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, April 17, 2016 12:25 PM
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [geo] March temperature smashes
>>>> 100-year global record
>>>>
>>>> Hi John
>>>>
>>>> The course of action to slow the rate of
warming (it
>>>> is 0.1 degree per decade not 0.2) and
ultimately to
>>>> stop it requires all of the following. Young
people
>>>> and climate activists the world over are
calling for
>>>> these things and campaigning actively and at
cost of
>>>> their freedom sometimes to bring them about:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Ending tropical forest burning
>>>> 2. Stopping building of new coal and oil fired
power
>>>> stations (Turkey and India and S Africa are
planning
>>>> 100s) and ending coal extraction by China,
>>>> Indonesia, and even Australia, Germany US and
UK who
>>>> have no conceivable need to continue extracting
the
>>>> stuff given the wealth already at the disposal of
>>>> their citizens and corporations
>>>> 3. Closing existing coal and oil fired electric
>>>> power plants
>>>> 4. Reforesting uplands, reducing sheep grazing,
and
>>>> increasing uptake of co2 in agric land with
biochar,
>>>> compost etc
>>>> 5. Ending expansion of air sea and road travel and
>>>> moving all road and sea travel to electric
vehicles
>>>> and wind. Rationing air travel to gradually shift
>>>> international and national travellers to other
means.
>>>> 6. Moving all electricity production to renewable
>>>> power and battery / reservoir storage of back
up power.
>>>> 7. Reengineering older buildings with insulation.
>>>> 8. Requiring all new builds to generate own power
>>>> and be zero carbon
>>>> 9. Reducing shipping and flying of food by
favouring
>>>> local over global food production.
>>>> 10. Ending large scale animal husbandry and moving
>>>> mainstream human protein requirements to beans,
>>>> vegetables etc.
>>>> 11. Favour pedestrians, cyclists and electric
bikes,
>>>> segways, electric wheelchairs etc in all city
>>>> planning and movement infrastructure
>>>>
>>>> Globally these measures would generate at least a
>>>> billion of jobs, reduce deaths from pollution, and
>>>> reduce health costs of cancers, heart disease,
>>>> obesity and air pollution, and reduce
concentrations
>>>> of wealth by putting capacity to generate power,
>>>> grow food and move around back in the hands of
>>>> householders and local communities. None of them
>>>> require large scale totalitarian and public
>>>> debt-based technologies of the kind represented
by CDR.
>>>>
>>>> We need moral alternatives to the present madness.
>>>> We need to argue for them in every possible forum
>>>> and embrace them ourselves. Arming the future
>>>> against the sun is a counsel of despair.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Michael
>>>>
>>>> Professor of Ethics
>>>> University of Edinburgh
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 17 Apr 2016, at 17:10, John Nissen
>>>> <<mailto:[email protected]
<javascript:>>[email protected] <javascript:>
>>>> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear Professor Mann,
>>>>>
>>>>> Most of us would like to keep global warming
below
>>>>> 1.5C this century. But we are way off course.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nobody likes to admit in public that we are
already
>>>>> in dangerous territory. But we are!
>>>>>
>>>>> The rate of global warming (near-surface
>>>>> temperature rise) could now exceed 0.2 C per
>>>>> decade; CO2 is above 400 ppm (an excess of 120
ppm
>>>>> above pre-industrial 280 ppm) of which most will
>>>>> remain this century due to CO2's long lifetime in
>>>>> the atmosphere; and we have already had over 1 C
>>>>> anthropogenic global warming (AGW). This means
>>>>> that, even with the most drastic cut in CO2
>>>>> emissions, we cannot avoid an extremely dangerous
>>>>> 3C this century without aggressive CO2 removal
>>>>> (CDR). Indeed, if we want to keep AGW below
1.5 C
>>>>> this century and halt ocean acidification,
then we
>>>>> need to get global warming rate down below 0.05 C
>>>>> per decade, i.e. less than a quarter the
current rate.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus climate forcing has to be reduced by 75%
>>>>> within a decade or two, to have a chance to keep
>>>>> below 1.5 C this century.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thus we have to reduce the CO2 level to around
210
>>>>> ppm (30 ppm above pre-industrial 280 ppm), and
>>>>> reduce methane from 1.8 ppm to around 1.0 ppm in
>>>>> order to reduce their combined forcing by 75%.
>>>>> This assumes we maintain aerosol cooling,
>>>>> especially the SO2 cooling from coal-fired power
>>>>> stations.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is exacerbated by climate forcing from the
>>>>> Arctic, at around 0.5 W/m2 and rising
exponentially
>>>>> as albedo loss accelerates.
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore, in addition to urgent CO2 emissions
>>>>> reduction, we need (i) aggressive CDR so that CO2
>>>>> is soon being removed from the atmosphere faster
>>>>> than than it is being emitted, (ii)
suppression of
>>>>> methane emissions, especially fugitive methane
>>>>> (iii) rapid cooling of the Arctic to restore
>>>>> albedo, and (iv) maintenance of SO2 aerosol
>>>>> cooling, if global warming is to be kept below
1.5
>>>>> C this century.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you agree or can you suggest an alternative
>>>>> course of action to avert extreme danger?
>>>>>
>>>>> Kind regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> John Nissen
>>>>> Chair, Arctic Methane Emergency Group (AMEG)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 3:22 AM, Greg Rau
>>>>> <[email protected] <javascript:>
<mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
<http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/15/march-temperature-smashes-100-year-global-record
<http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/15/march-temperature-smashes-100-year-global-record>>http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/15/march-temperature-smashes-100-year-global-record
<http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/15/march-temperature-smashes-100-year-global-record>
>>>>>>
>>>>> "The UK Met Office expects 2016 to set a new
>>>>> record
>>>>>
<http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/17/2016-set-to-be-hottest-year-on-record-globally
<http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/17/2016-set-to-be-hottest-year-on-record-globally>>,
>>>>> meaning the global temperature record is
set to
>>>>> have been broken for three years in a row.
>>>>> Prof Michael Mann, a climate scientist at
Penn
>>>>> State University in the US, responded to the
>>>>> March data by saying: “Wow. I continue to be
>>>>> shocked by what we are seeing.” He said the
>>>>> world had now been hovering close to the
>>>>> threshold of “dangerous” warming for two
>>>>> months, something not seen before.
>>>>> “The [new data] is a reminder of how
perilously
>>>>> close we now are to permanently crossing into
>>>>> dangerous territory,” Mann said. “It
>>>>> underscores the urgency of reducing global
>>>>> carbon emissions.”
>>>>> GR - and the need to seriously consider
>>>>> additional ways of managing CO2 and climate.
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
