Apart from a small cohort of interested researchers, nobody has a vested interest in questioning BECCS.
Conversely, a large number of people have accepted it as an intellectual fig leaf to cover up the policy of continuing emissions. For many of these people, jobs and wealth are at stake. Therefore, the BECCS concept (no matter how outlandish) is extremely resistant to displacement. A On 21 Aug 2017 00:22, "Greg Rau" <[email protected]> wrote: > Agreed, but the issue is how does that and other important ideas get into > CDR policy, roadmapping and PR while seemingly more complex yet limited > approaches like BECCS take center stage - better marketing, lobbyists? > Granted, BECCS generates negative emissions energy, but there are other > methods of doing this, including some that don't rely on biology. Given the > circumstances, do we really have the luxury of ignoring any of these until > they are proven (rather than assumed to be) irrelevant? > Greg Rau > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* "Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf)" <[email protected]> > *To:* "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>; " > [email protected]" <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Sunday, August 20, 2017 2:26 AM > *Subject:* RE: [geo] It’s time to start talking about “negative” carbon > dioxide emissions > > Well, the message is clear, but when I propose the most scalable and > proven process, and probably the cheapest way, not many people seem to > listen. So again: > 1:The weathering of olivine (and some similar rocks as well) has made life > possible on Earth > 2: Life itself (mainly marine life), by practically storing all CO2 as > limestones (made up of the calcite skeletons of corals, shellfish and > plankton) has provided a huge storage capacity for CO2. Carbonate sediments > contain about a million times all the CO2 in seas, the atmosphere and the > biosphere together. > 3. The needed additional storage capacity because we burn in a few hundred > years all the coal, oil and natural gas that has taken hundreds of million > years to form can be found in mining, milling and spreading olivine at > locations which make rapid weathering of olivine possible, like tropical > countries with high rainfall, or beaches with a strong surf, where coarse > olivine grains can be dumped. These grains will collide in the surf, by > which small slivers of olivine are knocked off. We have shown that thee > slivers often are already weathered within ten days in the saline water. > 4. There are much more olivine massifs at the Earth’s surface than we will > ever need to rebalance the input and output of CO2. These massifs can be > mined in open pit mines. In order to minimize transport costs, such olivine > mines should be strategically spread over the Earth and care can be taken > to spread their locations in such a way that developing countries profit > from the employment provided by the mining exploitation. > 5. Spreading olivine grains can be done in such a way that other > advantages of this spreading can also be used. > 6. Olivine is the most common mineral on Earth. > I think that developing many, mostly unproven technologies to counter > climate change is silly, as we have a natural process that has proven its > validity during 4.5 billion years, Olaf Schuiling > > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto:geoengineering@ > googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Greg Rau > *Sent:* zondag 20 augustus 2017 1:22 > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [geo] It’s time to start talking about “negative” carbon > dioxide emissions > > > https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/8/18/ > 16166014/negative-emissions > > "...it’s time for governments to start implementing policies that > incentivize the development of carbon removal technologies. And not just > one-off pilot projects, either, like the one that is *spectacularly > failing in Mississippi* > <https://www.vox.com/2016/7/5/12098504/kemper-ccs-problems-clean-coal>, > but the kinds of policies that will build up an industry that can expand > into gigatons. Just demonstrating that the technology can work is no longer > enough. Time to think about scale." > > GR - esp, thinking beyond land biology. > -- > 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. > -- > 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. > > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
