Olaf,
You’ve likely explained this, but what grain size distribution does $2/ton provide? Maybe you already have a trade-off table listing $__/ton for various grain sizes. With such a table, you could make optimization analysis on ways to make the reaction faster. For example (hypothetical numbers needing research): Maybe the $2/ton size takes 1,000 years to react with the atmosphere if stored in a desert. Maybe the $2/ton size takes 10 years to react on average when placed less than 1 meter thick on a salt water beach with __ average wave size. Maybe the $2/ton size takes a day to react in a fluidized bed reactor inside a geosynthetic membrane with seawater containing 50,000 ppm CO2 at 500 meters depth. Mark From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf) Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2017 6:23 AM To: '[email protected]' <[email protected]>; geoengineering <[email protected]> Cc: Arnold van Ittersum ([email protected]) <[email protected]> Subject: RE: [geo] Slicing the pie: how big could carbon dioxide removal be? - Psarras - 2017 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment - Wiley Online Library What an utter nonsense to think that CO2 capture and removal by mining, milling and spreading olivine would cost in the order of 100 US$ per ton. If you don’t know anything of mining and mining cost, don’t come up with confusing and ridiculous guesswork. There are many olivine massifs on every continent and in many countries. Mining is from open pits (at a cost of 4 US$ per ton), and milling adds another 2 US$. These numbers are from reliable mining engineers. Every ton of olivine removes somewhat more than 1 ton of CO2 from the atmosphere. And, because there are hundreds of times more tons of olivine are available, in principle can the spreading of milled olivine solve the whole CO2 problem, as it is scalable to any desired scale, and usually has additional advantages as well, Olaf Schuiling From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley Sent: donderdag 24 augustus 2017 11:27 To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Slicing the pie: how big could carbon dioxide removal be? - Psarras - 2017 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy and Environment - Wiley Online Library http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wene.253/full Slicing the pie: how big could carbon dioxide removal be? Authors * Peter Psarras, 1. * Holly Krutka, * Mathilde Fajardy, 1. * Zhiqu Zhang, 1. * Simona Liguori, 1. * Niall Mac Dowell, 1. * Jennifer Wilcox o 2. o * First published:28 July 2017 <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wene.253/full#publication-history> Full publication history * DOI:10.1002/wene.253 <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/exportCitation/doi/10.1002/wene.253> View/save citation * Cited by (CrossRef):0 articles <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/refreshCitedBy?doi=10.1002/wene.253&refreshCitedByCounter=true> Check for updates Citation tools * * Conflict of interest: The authors have declared no conflicts of interest for this article. Abstract The current global dependence on fossil fuels to meet energy needs continues to increase. If a 2°C warming by 2100 is to be prevented, it will become important to adopt strategies that not only avoid CO2 emissions but also allow for the direct removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, enabling the intervention of climate change. The primary direct removal methods discussed in this review include land management and mineral carbonation in addition to bioenergy and direct air capture with carbon capture and reliable storage. These methods are discussed in detail, and their potential for CO2 removal is assessed. The global upper bound for annual CO2removal was estimated to be 12, 10, 6, and 5 GtCO2/year for bioenergy with carbon capture and reliable storage (BECCS), direct air capture with reliable storage (DACS), land management, and mineral carbonation, respectively—giving a cumulative value of ~35 GtCO2/year. However, in the case of DACS, global data on the overlap of low-emission energy sources and reliable CO2storage opportunities—set as a qualification for DAC viability—were unavailable, and the potential upper bound estimate is thus considered conservative. The upper bounds on the costs associated with the direct CO2removal methods varied from approximately $100/tCO2 (land management, BECCS, and mineral carbonation) to $1000/tCO2 for DACS (again, these are the upper bounds for costs). In this review, these direct CO2 removal technologies are found to be technically viable and are potentially important options in preventing 2°C warming by 2100. WIREs Energy Environ 2017, 6:e253. doi: 10.1002/wene.253 -- 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. -- 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. -- 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.
