Ron B. et al, adding the biochar.io list and one USBI staffer.
I support your letter - as requested below
For easy comparison on style, I include your three proposed R&D foci
with my proposed fourth. Note one typo in #2
On the relative harm and benefit of partially relaxing the recently fully
implemented IMO maritime bunker fuel sulfur emissions regulation for “high
seas” maritime transport in ways that as much as possible, increase the human
and natural global cooling benefits of sulfur aerosols, and decrease the human
and natural harm of tropospheric sulfuric acid, from these maritime emissions.
On the possible inclusion of benign tropospheric aerosol precursors such as sea
water, or other substances in existing fuel, or future non-GHG, or net-zero
GHG, emitting fuel, that increase the human and natural global cooling
benefits of sulfur aerosols, and decrease the human and natural harm of
tropospheric sulfuric acid, from these maritime emissions.
On the possible injection of benign tropospheric aerosol precursors such as sea
water, or other substances from ships, regardless of what fuel they use, that
could provide direct climate cooling that would be as, or more effective, than
“bunker fuel” sulfur in providing effective direct climate cooling with no or
much less harm to human and natural health current efforts.
4. On the possible replacement of fossil bunker fuels and existing combustion
equipment with biomass pyrolysis systems that apparently can achieve the needed
cost efficiency through solid oxide fuel cells (SOFCs), which may double the
usual efficiencies by converting syngas to electricity for ship propulsion
while also creating the income-generating carbon negative co-product: biochar.
Added explanatory notes:
I have discussed the above suggested fourth addition with a few fellow
biochar advocates, but am not aware of it being proposed publicly prior to
today. SOFC R&D is quite well advanced and SOFC systems are commercially
available.
But R&D funding is certainly needed, especially for this (possibly new)
application.
Commonly associated with only hydrogen, SOFCs also work with carbon
monoxide (CO), the other main component of syngas.
Space now used for bunker fuel might be enough, but the huge
multi-ocean cargo ships now using bunker fuels seem large enough to open up new
space for biomass fuel.
Generated biochar can be readily placed in the space first used for the
needed biomass. The amazingly high efficiency of SOFCs possibly means that
space now needed for bunker fuel is sufficient for the less energy dense
biomass.
R&D can also focus on the many ways that the biomass and biochar stocks
can be best configured at or near the many ports where they will be needed.
R&D will also help determine if the normal exhaust CO2 might be somehow
captured during each trip - as in all proposed CCS systems, again helping to
lower shipping costs.
Probably can add sulfur co-products as in Ron B’s three options. Main
rationale though is simply replacing the fuel now widely prohibited in ports
world-wide. Should be considerable economies in avoiding the present
prohibitions.
These ships are regularly docked for service during which this
relatively small modification can be accomplished.
Bunker fuel use is not as necessary as routinely stated.
(The above 3 paragraphs moved up from the underlined cite below.)
Ron
> On Aug 15, 2023, at 3:20 PM, Ron Baiman <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> I would greatly appreciate suggested edits and comments to this proposed open
> letter:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ewSMGl1bnh-umD86pT0x_2-EvaZUHbe1/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=116465941111195452408&rtpof=true&sd=true
>
> Most importantly, does the text and the three requests (one inspired by a
> comment from Stephen Salter) make sense, and is the overall descriptive
> language accurate?
>
> Thank you!
>
> Best,
> Ron Baiman
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAPhUB9BPaifrSK7A6v1WT8JZvHJGr-xO-KtHfyYk7XvKcpQF7A%40mail.gmail.com
>
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/CAPhUB9BPaifrSK7A6v1WT8JZvHJGr-xO-KtHfyYk7XvKcpQF7A%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/15FFD936-AC0A-40A1-8102-9002F0D39851%40comcast.net.
