Hi Andrew:

A combination of marine microalgae production and BECCS makes sense in certain 
locations, and a combination of marine microalgae production and DAC makes 
sense in other locations, especially arid subtropical regions. We have a 
manuscript on the former that will soon be submitted.

Chuck Greene

> On Sep 19, 2017, at 3:46 AM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Why use DAC not BECCS? Suggest you reply on list
> 
> A
> 
> On 17 Sep 2017 19:14, "Charles Greene" <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> Co-locating DAC and PV or concentrated solar with commercial-scale, marine 
> microalgae production facilities would provide onsite supply of electricity 
> and CO2 without the release of any additional emissions of fossil carbon. In 
> addition to producing fossil carbon-neutral liquid fuels and nutritional 
> products from the microalgae, the production of plastics and other 
> biopetroleum products for the human-built environment could lock up carbon 
> while generating revenue. This might be preferable to DAC and subsequent 
> carbon sequestration in geological repositories. The market for 
> carbon-negative biopetroleum products is not of sufficient scale at present 
> to create a large dent in the amount of carbon that will need to be stored. 
> However, the infrastructure required for the human-built environment is 
> enormous, and we would just need to be clever in how we substitute materials.
> 
>> On Sep 17, 2017, at 1:49 PM, Peter Eisenberger <[email protected] 
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> 
>> I agree with this 100% 
>> 
>> On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 7:14 AM, Michael MacCracken <[email protected] 
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> A problem at present is that present high-voltage/alternating current 
>> distribution lines mean that low-cost transmission of electricity is limited 
>> to a few hundred miles, so one would have to disperse DAC. If instead there 
>> were large-scale high-voltage/direct current distribution lines (see 
>> MacDonald et al., Nature, January 2016), then there could be long distance, 
>> low-cost transmission over large distances and one would have a much better 
>> likelihood of having access to any stranded energy (from wind, solar, 
>> geothermal, nuclear, etc.), all while having DAC located where it would be 
>> optimally able to store the captured carbon. Just another reason, among 
>> many, for having large-scale HV/DC networks across the world's continents.
>> Mike MacCracken
>> 
>> On 9/17/17 10:50 AM, Hawkins, Dave wrote:
>>> Using stranded renewable energy for DAC is an interesting idea.  Question 
>>> is what energy resource will be used during periods when there is no 
>>> surplus RE? If DAC does not run 24/7 its costs go up. If DAC uses RE to run 
>>> 24/7, that requires a larger RE system with associated stranding. If DAC 
>>> uses something other than RE, what is it? Ideally, we would have an 
>>> economically dispatchable zero-carbon resource.
>>> This is not an argument against DAC, just an observation on system 
>>> complexity.
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>> 
>>> On Sep 17, 2017, at 3:58 AM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected] 
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Does anyone have a breakdown of projected input costs for Direct Air 
>>>> Capture? I'm interested in quantifying the energy component.
>>>> 
>>>> Swanson's law predicts reliable falls in the cost of solar. Without 
>>>> storage, much peak-time solar could be wasted, unless it's used for 
>>>> time-insensitive applications like DAC or desalination.
>>>> 
>>>> (I understand Keith's process needs electricity, but Lackner's instead 
>>>> needs heat.) 
>>>> 
>>>> My hypothesis is that DAC could become vastly cheaper, if energy costs 
>>>> trended down as expected due to Swanson's law, and cheaper still if it 
>>>> became a way to use this stranded energy.
>>>> 
>>>> I'd welcome thoughts, data, projections and comments.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks
>>>> 
>>>> Andrew Lockley
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> 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 
>>>> <https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering>.
>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
>>>> <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 
>>> <https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering>.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
>>> <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 
>> <https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering>.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: This email message and all attachments contain 
>> confidential and privileged information that are for the sole use of the 
>> intended recipients, which if appropriate applies under the terms of the 
>> non-disclosure agreement between the parties.
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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 
>> <https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering>.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
>> <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 
> <https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> <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.

Reply via email to