*Dr. Hori, Greg, Ron and list,* *Dr. Hori*,
You mentioned that "*both tasks *(CDR and bioenergy production)* will be accomplished most effectively and efficiently by an integrated approach*". This reasoning needs to be amplified as there is a great deal of effort being put into promoting one concept over the other. To repeat the advice offered by Dr. Mike MacCracken a few years ago, *"We need to circle the wagons (to promote multiple approaches to CDR) and try to not shoot inwards". *I agree with Mike 100%. We need to find ways in-which as many CDR pathways as possible can be funded and used. The scale of the problem(s) is simply too vast to limit our options or *overlook synergies between options*. Dr. Hori, thank you for your comments and permission. *Greg, *although there are reasonable uses for the inshore waters, such as nutrient removal and artisan fisheries etc., I routinely point to the benefits of using the marine deserts for vast scale marine biomass production as the local nutrient cycling issue simply becomes moot due to the fact that marine deserts have virtually no endemic surface species. Further, their is absolutely no risk of tsunami damage, the legal/policy issues are straight forward and rather simplistic, every nation can participate as a producer, the transport of the commodities to shore is easy as there are many ships that use the areas etc. <https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/FQkWoYBOb7D471uT159D0XUhLXHbOZ0Ji0IiKregTtg4LBMKAeu47BZSmFezHmAiLsjHJtrhclXBMCYNvO3lJA3MeqZYiWMQVmYFn09vhYFw7NVWSZdGRm4VRGuh5q5JA-bZlNEfZ7ECK1vfq1adaiS-NuLzGLBa0B3sgXEO5KjhutI7Ii5XPFTiP_sBejNJ413qwK51-fvhPoYkP2aq_oToMJAVvfa5UNFYFEJ4EH1CiiucR2I469ye6olShmubavawCFHHSVw0gb5E09l-U8gFkU0gXGvXq0d2C44IwlfrzDGGTUq5azpM_HjvsYZgVcbEuFY9Dcer8YCyJJVJHN0SKjNADLNeLQQY3Zh3HAVMjvCcvUHpvEjFrQcfgqOj1lz8XUG7p-idpGtao_jMhvdQEfsF5wnfOKZR5e0eBnOgXACPQwiZ9mnsjJ7032OZ_RqDoWl9GaGsVPDCVrBo-De4JFl_Toj3lcpfg0jYnPU1QqbQrX-eIdur3alDZHlF9qYs6-XHWGFV4otYHryDqY0-mGBUPQB6AAhuAcqKj4SRSWpQsrjn08wU85BQQxIjaIPb=w1334-h667-no> Marine Tragic Pattern Concerning your recommendation to convert CO2 emissions for pH adjustment, that method would be used to its fullest extent. I see no reason why that method of CO2 conversion should not be universally used across the FF energy industry as it is our best point source capture method. In fact, the use of such pH adjustment material would be used within the marine biomass production itself...as well as olivine...and the passing ship traffic can possibly disseminate the pH adjustment material along their way to port. As to your advice that "*Both the gaseous and solid combustion effluent could be hydrated/reacted in the same seawater+carbonate stream used above and returned to the sea. Thus "precious" nutrients (and plankton souls) are respectfully returned to the ocean - only marine energy is extracted and nothing else." * Returning effluent would require approval of at least the IMO and possibly the CBD. If the biomass production is within the inshore waters, returning effluent nutrients to those waters, unless well spread out over space and time, would most likely create a dead zone. However, working well offshore makes the local nutrient cycle, again, moot. The marine deserts have no more local surface life than a few sparse microbes and have a combined spacial value greater than some continents. Expecting to cultivate >6Gton biomass/y, as Dr. Hori projects as plausible as a production number at the nuclear plant(s) level, within the inshore waters is highly problematic on many environmental, regulatory and socioeconomic levels. In the marine deserts, however, vast scale infrastructure can be profitably operated and maintained for generations. As an interesting side note, although there are no indigenous life in the surface waters of the marine deserts, as we all know, there are transit species.Transit animals could actually be provided a sort of highway rest station where they could enjoy a few extra meals as the production platforms would also serve as a Fish Aggregating Device <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fish_aggregating_device> (great tuna fishing/whale watching anyone?). In short, vast scale marine biomass platforms would create their own wildlife populations from micro to macro species and thus produce a 'greening' of potentially vast areas of the marine deserts. With the greatest respect Greg, your position that *"Proactive recycling of biomass/nutrients is essential standard procedure in managed (ag) land ecosystems, why not also marine ones?" *does not mate up well with most opinions coming from the UNEP/FAO <http://www.e-elgar.com/shop/books?book_series=New%20Horizons%20in%20Environmental%20and%20Energy%20Law%20series> folks which calls for great concern about inshore water eutrophication. Actually vast scale removal of nutrients from inland waters would be an important environmental and even public health service in many regions of our great seas and inshore waters. In brief, using the nutrients (and CO2, cooling water, renewable energy, the vast space etc.) found within the marine deserts provides us with virtually unlimited resources and room to grow. As everyone knows, the inshore regions are the marine equivalent of a rain forest in their complexities and the important environmental/socoeconomic services they provide. Obviously, my position is that working within the marine deserts will provide the most profitable and most environmentally balanced means to achieve vast scale (>6Gton/y) biomass production. Greg, thanks for the comments and humor as usual. *Ron,* like Dr. Hori, I take a broad view of the BECCS label and I do believe that the IPCC WG 3 would allow a rather broad definition of BECCS. Further, I once proposed in a post that the use of the term Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Sequestration (CCUS) be used as opposed to BECCS as it, *at least in my mind*, better describes the vast scale CDR effort we now face. However, I'm not interested in going on some campaign about the name issue. I will, however, attempt to be more specific in my writings and simply avoid the use of BECCS. Recently, however, I have run across others who have begun to use CCUS as opposed to BECCS. The issues of profitable utilization of the CO2 and the proper sequestration of much of that carbon, via biochar and other means, should be as equally important as the biofuel factor. It is the profitable utilization of the carbon, inter alia production of food, feed, organic fertilizer, polymers etc, which will financially support the biofuel/biochar production and even the marine pH adjustment effort as they are low margin commodities and services respectively. We need the widest possible profitable utilization portfolio of carbon based goods and services so as to support such critical yet low margin commodities as well as the investor's desire for >8% return on the investments. Ron, I do always do appreciate your encouragement to be more precise. Best regards, Michael On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 8:38:08 AM UTC-7, mhori wrote: > > Dear Ron and List > > Thank you very much Ron for your comments. I would like to respond some > of the points you raised as follows; > > A. Terminology of BECCS > > In my reply to Michael I used 'BECCS' or 'Bio-energy with carbon capture > and storage' in a broad sense. 'BECCS' in the broad sense means 'biomass > energy utilization with carbon capture and storage via CO2 injection > into geological formations, via biochar or via any other forms of > carbon'. Though, I am not sure this usage is appropriate. > > B. On your comments starting with 'RWL: ' > > 1. > > The nuclear issue then relates to economies of > > scale. I am uncertain the scale of Dr. Hori’s nuclear plants/* > > A typical nuclear reactor type applicable to high temperature processes > is 'HTGR' (High temperature gas-cooled reactor). A test reactor called > HTTR (criticality reached in 1998, in Japan) is helium gas cooled 30 MW > thermal power with outlet temperature of 950 degree Celsius. > Future HTGR commercial plants are being designed in Japan with capacity > of 600 MW thermal. It is not so large compared with a modern Light Water > Reactor with output of 1,700 MW electrical and 4,451 MW thermal (US-APWR). > > 2. > > *A surprise to me was reference to _60% increase_ in this sentence on > > his page 4: / “//This synergistic biomass-nuclear process can increase > > the effective carbon removal amount by both biochar and biofuel about > > 60% compared to a similar biomass-only process when processing the same > > amount of biomass.” > > On the '60% increse', my rough estimate using the conditions I > postulated for the concept building is shown in the attached figure > titled "Comparison of Two Biomass Processes". > > 3. > > But I can conceive that nuclear thermal might have > > a place with biomass drying (Dr. Hori has a figure showing drying with > > nuclear electricity).* > > The vapor compression and condensation drying methods (the compressor is > driven by electric power) are more efficient than conventional drying > methods using nuclear heat directly. In the reported case, nuclear > energy consumption is decreased to 1/1.8 by using nuclear electricity > from Light Water Reactors. Please see the attached figure titled > "Nuclear Energy Required for Drying of Biomass " > > Best regards, > > Masao Hori > [email protected] <javascript:> > ------------------------------- > > Ronal W. Larson wrote on 2016/04/26 4:26: > > > List, Dr. Hori, Michael Hayes (adding Greg Rau) > > > > I respond in part because mine is the message furthest down in this list > > - and I am remiss in responding to Dr. Rau. But I am also interested in > > the Hayes-Hori dialog. > > > > This note is also about what the term “BECCS” means. Note that in most > > discussions on this list BECCS refers only to electrical generation. > > Dr. Hori (ut maybe not Michael) is referring to biofuels. My > > preference is to use “BECCS” only for electrical generation, but to > > recognize that biochar can be a co-product with both electrical and fuel > > generation (with which I believe Michael concurs - and maybe also Drs. > > Hori and Rau). Michael does not use BECCS in he same way. > > > > See inserts below for four messages. > > > > > > > >> On Apr 25, 2016, at 9:38 AM, M.Hori <[email protected] <javascript:> > >> <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>> wrote: > >> > >> Dear Dr. Hayes > >> > >> Thank you very much for your comment. It is very encouraging. > >> > >> 1. I would welcome you or anyone to reference my paper to your marine > >> based infrastructure/investment project or any other projects for > >> global environment restoration and sustainable world energy supply. > >> > >> 2. I am interested in your marine biomass BECCS concept, reading its > >> features you wrote. Some marine biomass (algae) grow faster than > >> terrestrial plants, so I think that marine BECCS process may better > >> be centralized with easier assembling of biomass. > > *[RWL: Michael Hayes (next) uses “BECCS” to mainly (or only?) > > mean “biochar”, whereas you (Dr. Hori, below) do not do so. I believe > > Michael is promoting decentralization with land use of ocean-generated > > biomass (as biochar). The nuclear issue then relates to economies of > > scale. I am uncertain the scale of Dr. Hori’s nuclear plants/* > >> > >> 3. I think that the global CDR task and the world energy supply task > >> are both indispensable in the coming decades, and that the both tasks > >> will be accomplished most effectively and efficiently by an > >> integrated approach. The Carbon-Negative Energy System is a reference > >> concept in this direction. I hope it will be upgraded, updated, > >> revised and combined with other processes for our global tasks. > > [*RWL: Same for all of us on this thread, I believe. So thanks for > > your emphasizing a possible (and surprising) role for nuclear energy in > > CDR - with biofuels.* > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> Masao Hori > >> [email protected] <javascript:> <mailto:[email protected] > <javascript:>> > >> ------------------------------------- > >> > >> Michael Hayes wrote on 2016/04/22 8:16: > > *[RWL: I have communicated a good bit with Michael, and fully support > > his emphasis on “blue” carbon. Here I only underline/bold how he is > > emphasizing biochar (which I believe is synonymous with BECCS for > > Michael) - and not the more common reservation of “BECCS” to mean > > deep underground placement of pressurized/liquid CO2, following > > electrical generation. But I also ask for his comments on the > > word “BECCS” here.* > >> > >>> 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> > > *[RWL: In this 10-pager, the word “BECCS” appears once, and “biochar” > > 21 times. The electricity generation here is via nuclear - so BECCS is > > not needed or reasonable to discuss.* > > * > > * > > *A surprise to me was reference to _60% increase_ in this sentence on > > his page 4: / “//This synergistic biomass-nuclear process can increase > > the effective carbon removal amount by both biochar and biofuel about > > 60% compared to a similar biomass-only process when processing the same > > amount of biomass.” /There are very few biochar producers working with > > biofuels. The main one I know of (http://www.coolplanet.com/) does not > > use Fischer-Tropsch. But I can conceive that nuclear thermal might have > > a place with biomass drying (Dr. Hori has a figure showing drying with > > nuclear electricity).* > > * > > * > > *I can’t be sure of why Dr. Hori has emphasized biochar in his response > > to Greg - but note that most of the biochar (charcoal used in > > agriculture/horticulture) literature over the 100 years prior to about > > 2000 was in Japanese.* > > * > > * > > * > > * > >>> > >>> 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. > > *[RWL: Not reproduced here, but I think we can do more with biomass > > (Dr. Hori showing biomass harvest for CDR as 6 Gt C/yr, with biochar > > from that at 1.1 Gt C/yr), Additionally, more biochar is possible when > > co-produced with electrical and thermal needs in mind. But also much > > more when using ocean resources (per Michael Hayes). I can’t see that > > Dr. Hori is using ocean biomass.* > >>> > >>> > >>> Masao Hori > >>> Nuclear Systems Association, Japan > >>> Tel: (81) 90-9683-1132 > >>> Email: [email protected] <http://mxb.mesh.ne.jp> <javascript:> > >>> ---------------------------- > >>> > >>> Greg Rau wrote on 2016/04/21 10:27: > > *[RWL: I believe the above contribution from Dr. Hori is based on this > > comment on BECCS (not biochar?) from Dr. Rau four days ago, replying to > me.* > >>> > >>> > 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). > > *[RWL: I don’t understand the above. There are hundreds of biochar > > companies now - with at least a dozen (and many more academic and > > others) who are producing both biochar and energy on a daily basis. And > > probably about half the energy is from carbon (the weight loss is about > > 3/4- but only 1/2 the carbon is lost as CO2 in the pyrolysis process). > > A beauty of the biochar production process (for CDR) is that so much of > > the hydrogen can be removed for energy purposes; the considerable energy > > value of H2 in biomass is not needed for CDR.* > > > >>> 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? > > *[RWL: I didn’t mean to say that $100/tonne CO2 was a showstopper. It > > probably is cheaper than the alternative of not aggressively pursuing > > CDR (agreeing with you I think). But that numerical figure gives about > > $300/tonne biochar (combining the 44/12=3.67 value and the fact that > > biochar is not 100% carbon). Charcoal itself (not certified biochar) > > itself can be purchased today at a value less than $300/tonne. In > > addition biochar has commercial value today in excess of its sale price > > (because of increased production and reduced other expenses - even > > possibly with a one-year payback - as can be seen in Cool-Planet > > literature). So, I presume that Greg’s reference to “darling” means > > BECCS, not biochar. In the absence of the $100/tonne CO2, BECCS is > > expense only - not the investment category when one is buying biochar.* > > > >>> 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). > > *[RWL: All of these statements apply to BECCS, not biochar. The > > problem is compounded by needing to analyze the “payback” over hundreds > > of years, whereas BECCS requires continuing expenditures for monitoring > > (no out-year income). These out-year payback computations must include > > many aspects of carbon - above and below ground. I don’t see > > those out-year computations in almost any CDR comparison.* > > *But my guess on why we will see BECCS languish is the user’s need for > > insurance - the same as for CCS. The US’ DoE has already declined to > > pay for CCS insurance.* > > * > > * > > *I am mostly agreeing here with Greg- not disagreeing.* > > > > Ron > > > >>> > Greg > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> > >>> > *From:* Ronal W. Larson <[email protected] > >>> <http://comcast.net> <javascript:>> > >>> > *To:* RAU greg <[email protected] <http://sbcglobal.net> > >>> <javascript:>>; > >>> Geoengineering > >>> > <[email protected] <http://googlegroups.com> > >>> <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] > >>> <http://sbcglobal.net> > >>> <javascript:> > >>> >> <mailto:[email protected] <http://sbcglobal.net> > >>> <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] > >>> <http://comcast.net> <javascript:> > >>> >> <mailto:[email protected] <http://comcast.net> > >>> <javascript:>>> > >>> >> *To:* RAU greg <[email protected] > >>> <http://sbcglobal.net> <javascript:> > >>> <mailto:[email protected] <http://sbcglobal.net> <javascript:>>> > >>> >> *Cc:* Stephen Salter <[email protected] > >>> <http://ed.ac.uk> <javascript:> > >>> >> <mailto:[email protected] <http://ed.ac.uk> > >>> <javascript:>>>; Geoengineering > >>> >> <[email protected] <http://googlegroups.com> > >>> <javascript:> > >>> >> <mailto:[email protected] > >>> <http://googlegroups.com> <javascript:>>> > >>> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 19, 2016 3:21 PM > >>> >> *Subject:* Re: [geo] March temperature smashes 100-year > >>> global > >>> >> record > >>> >> > >>> >> Greg, Stephen, list > >>> >> > >>> >> > > *[RWL: Snip three points.* > >>> >> > >>> >> 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 > >>> >> > >>> >> > > *[RWL: Snipped 5-6 messages.* > > > > -- > > 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] <javascript:> > > <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <javascript:> > > <mailto:[email protected] <javascript:>>. > > Visit this group at https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
