[geo] Geoengineering Lecture | HUCE
http://environment.harvard.edu/events/2013-02-12/geoengineering-lecture Geoengineering Lecture Tuesday, February 12, 2013 - 5:00pm Contact Name: Lisa Matthews matt...@fas.harvard.edu Haller Hall, Geo Museum 102, 24 Oxford Street, Cambridge Smoke and Mirrors: Is Geoengineering a Solution to Global Warming? with Alan Robock, Department of Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University ABSTRACT: In response to the global warming problem, there has been a recent renewed interest in geoengineering “solutions” involving “solar radiation management” by injecting particles into the stratosphere, brightening clouds, or blocking sunlight with satellites between the Sun and Earth. While volcanic eruptions have been suggested as innocuous examples of stratospheric aerosols cooling the planet, the volcano analog actually argues against geoengineering because of ozone depletion and regional hydrologic responses. In this talk, I describe different proposed geoengineering designs, and then show climate model calculations that evaluate both their efficacy and their possible adverse consequences. No such systems to conduct geoengineering now exist, but a comparison of different proposed stratospheric injection schemes, using airplanes, balloons, and artillery, shows that using airplanes to put sulfur gases into the stratosphere would not be expensive. Nevertheless, it would be very difficult to create stratospheric sulfate particles with a desirable size distribution. Our GeoMIP project, conducting climate model experiments with standard stratospheric aerosol injection scenarios, is ongoing, but has already shown that temperature and precipitation responses would be uneven globally. If there were a way to continuously inject SO2 into the lower stratosphere, it would produce global cooling, stopping melting of the ice caps, and increasing the uptake of CO2 by plants. But there are at least 26 reasons why geoengineering may be a bad idea. These include disruption of the Asian and African summer monsoons, reducing precipitation to the food supply for billions of people; ozone depletion; no more blue skies; reduction of solar power; and rapid global warming if it stops. Furthermore, the prospect of geoengineering working may reduce the current drive toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions, there are concerns about commercial or military control, and it may seriously degrade terrestrial astronomy and satellite remote sensing. Global efforts to reduce anthropogenic emissions and to adapt to climate change are a much better way to channel our resources to address anthropogenic global warming. ABOUT THE LECTURE SERIES: Solar geoengineering is the concept of deliberately cooling the Earth by reflecting a small amount of inbound sunlight back into space. It is the only currently known method for reducing temperatures in the short term (years to decades), and therefore has the potential to reduce many of the worst impacts of global warming. But what would be the side effects, both physical and socio-political? How would it work and who gets to decide if it is deployed? Does humanity have the wisdom and the institutions to govern the development of such a powerful technology in this messy, multi-polar world? This seminar series, held jointly by the Harvard University Center for the Environment (HUCE) and MIT’s Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, will explore the science, technology, governance and ethics of solar geoengineering. In bringing together international experts, participants will learn some of the greatest challenges and hear opinions on how this technology could and should be managed. -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[geo] Re: Nickel nanoparticles catalyse reversible hydration of carbon dioxide for mineralization carbon capture and storage - Catalysis Science Technology (RSC Publishing)
With presence of Ni we have increases at the same time trapping of CO2 and increased the rates of conversion to carbonic acid on room temperature and on the atmospheric pressure. We still working to find the best mineralisation pathway - we will use silicates (magnesium calcium silicates) as a source of Ca2+ or Mg2+. While nickel nanoparticles are toxic as already mentioned in the paper we do not propose to spread this around in the enviroment but to have local disposal next to power plant or industrial plant. We made brief cost - 8$ per ton of CO2 if we can recover Ni 99% yield based on current price of nickel. -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Re: Nickel nanoparticles catalyse reversible hydration of carbon dioxide for mineralization carbon capture and storage - Catalysis Science Technology (RSC Publishing)
Thanks for responding. I really don't follow this. If I have a beaker of water fully equilibrated with air (CO2) and add your Ni particles, you are saying that more HCO3- and ultimately CO3s will spontaneously be produced. This won't happen unless thermodynamically favored, and if that water if fully equilibrated with air CO2 there is no thermodynamic condition that will force a change in the C chemistry. If your Ni particles are somehow consuming H+ or producing OH- then you've got a driving force, but you still need a source cations to make CaCO3s (am very interested to learn how you cheaply extract cations from silicates.) Otherwise, adding a catalyst to a system at thermodynamic equilibrium does nothing. On the other hand, adding something to seawater that overcomes the natural, chemical inhibition of abiotic CaCO3s precipitation could really cause some serious precipitation and CO2 injection into the atmosphere. No? -Greg From: lidijasil...@gmail.commailto:lidijasil...@gmail.com lidijasil...@gmail.commailto:lidijasil...@gmail.com Reply-To: lidijasil...@gmail.commailto:lidijasil...@gmail.com lidijasil...@gmail.commailto:lidijasil...@gmail.com Date: Thursday, February 7, 2013 8:32 AM To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: [geo] Re: Nickel nanoparticles catalyse reversible hydration of carbon dioxide for mineralization carbon capture and storage - Catalysis Science Technology (RSC Publishing) With presence of Ni we have increases at the same time trapping of CO2 and increased the rates of conversion to carbonic acid on room temperature and on the atmospheric pressure. We still working to find the best mineralisation pathway - we will use silicates (magnesium calcium silicates) as a source of Ca2+ or Mg2+. While nickel nanoparticles are toxic as already mentioned in the paper we do not propose to spread this around in the enviroment but to have local disposal next to power plant or industrial plant. We made brief cost - 8$ per ton of CO2 if we can recover Ni 99% yield based on current price of nickel. -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Re: Nickel nanoparticles catalyse reversible hydration of carbon dioxide for mineralization carbon capture and storage - Catalysis Science Technology (RSC Publishing)
Yes there is a driving force - we see OH and HCO3 on surface of nickel particles . Due to large surface area of particles the Ni-HCO3 plays large part how much of CO2 in total can be stored in this system. If you need a paper I can send you via my university account- lidia.sil...@ncl.ac.uk. Regarding the mineralisation part we are working on this. o -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Re: Nickel nanoparticles catalyse reversible hydration of carbon dioxide for mineralization carbon capture and storage - Catalysis Science Technology (RSC Publishing)
Dear Dr Rau, Thank you for your response towards our research, I appreciate your comments on our work. To explain about the saturation experiments; we tried to saturate the CO2 within water and with and without the nanoparticles present in the system and found that there was more CO2 in the nanoparticle solution in that of pure water.We do not claim in the paper that we are getting CO3-- in our system at all. We have observed that the concentration of the acid in the nanoparticle solution is higher than that of pure water. We observed that here was HCO3- species on our nanoparticle surface and the possible explanation (for this increase) we suggested was that there might me adsorption of HCO3- ions (from the acid) on the nanoparticle surface. As all this is happening at a pH in the acidic range (5) thus according to chemistry of CO2 in water at this pH range there is acid system and none of the basic system of bicarbonates or carbonates exist. As mentioned by Dr Siller, previously we are yet experimenting on the method of carbonate mineral formation with; possibly silicate sources. We do not tend to use sea water or oceanic system in our work at all. The idea to use Nickel for this reaction was taken from the sea urchin studies conducted by Dr Siller and other my other colleagues. We do not dump anything into the sea or use the oceanic system into the process. We suggest using a mineral source (terrestrial) for the metal ion (Ca2+ or Mg2+) to form corresponding mineral carbonate. The concept is to use it as a satellite unit for point source emission (power plants for example) trapping. On Thursday, 7 February 2013 18:49:41 UTC, Greg Rau wrote: Thanks for responding. I really don't follow this. If I have a beaker of water fully equilibrated with air (CO2) and add your Ni particles, you are saying that more HCO3- and ultimately CO3s will spontaneously be produced. This won't happen unless thermodynamically favored, and if that water if fully equilibrated with air CO2 there is no thermodynamic condition that will force a change in the C chemistry. If your Ni particles are somehow consuming H+ or producing OH- then you've got a driving force, but you still need a source cations to make CaCO3s (am very interested to learn how you cheaply extract cations from silicates.) Otherwise, adding a catalyst to a system at thermodynamic equilibrium does nothing. On the other hand, adding something to seawater that overcomes the natural, chemical inhibition of abiotic CaCO3s precipitation could really cause some serious precipitation and CO2 injection into the atmosphere. No? -Greg From: lidija...@gmail.com javascript: lidija...@gmail.comjavascript: Reply-To: lidija...@gmail.com javascript: lidija...@gmail.comjavascript: Date: Thursday, February 7, 2013 8:32 AM To: geoengineering geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript: Subject: [geo] Re: Nickel nanoparticles catalyse reversible hydration of carbon dioxide for mineralization carbon capture and storage - Catalysis Science Technology (RSC Publishing) With presence of Ni we have increases at the same time trapping of CO2 and increased the rates of conversion to carbonic acid on room temperature and on the atmospheric pressure. We still working to find the best mineralisation pathway - we will use silicates (magnesium calcium silicates) as a source of Ca2+ or Mg2+. While nickel nanoparticles are toxic as already mentioned in the paper we do not propose to spread this around in the enviroment but to have local disposal next to power plant or industrial plant. We made brief cost - 8$ per ton of CO2 if we can recover Ni 99% yield based on current price of nickel. -- 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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to geoeng...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[geo] Sooty ships may be geoengineering by accident - 06 February 2013 - New Scientist
Posters note : Ships apparently 'geoengineering' with iron as well as sulfur. Where would we be without them? http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729035.100-sooty-ships-may-be-geoengineering-by-accident.html ? Sooty ships may be geoengineering by accident 06 February 2013 by Jeff Hecht Magazine issue 2903. GEOENGINEERING is being tested - albeit inadvertently - in the north Pacific. Soot from oil-burning ships is dumping about 1000 tonnes of soluble iron per year across 6 million square kilometres of ocean, new research has revealed.Fertilising the world's oceans with iron has been controversially proposed as a way of sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere to curb global warming. Some geoengineers claim releasing iron into the sea will stimulate plankton blooms, which absorb carbon, but ocean processes are complex and difficult to monitor in tests.Experiments suggest you change the population of algae, causing a shift from fish-dominated to jellyfish-dominated ecosystems, says Alex Baker of the University of East Anglia, UK. Such concerns led the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to impose a moratorium on geoengineering experiments in 2010.The annual ship deposition is much larger, if less concentrated, than the iron released in field tests carried out before the moratorium was in place. Yet because ship emissions are not intended to alter ocean chemistry, they do not violate the moratorium, says Jim Thomas of the ETC Group, a think tank that consults for the CBD. If you intentionally drove oil-burning ships back and forth as a geoengineering experiment, that would contravene it.The new study, by Akinori Ito of the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, is the first to quantify how shipping deposits iron in parts of the ocean normally deficient in it. Earlier models had assumed that only 1 to 2 per cent of the iron contained in aerosols, including shipping emissions, is soluble in seawater, so the remaining 98 to 99 percent would sink to the bottom without affecting ocean life. But Ito found that up to 80 per cent of the iron in shipping soot is soluble (Global Biogeochemical Cycles, doi.org/kdj). As this soot rapidly falls to the sea surface, it is likely to be fertilising the oceans.In the high-latitude north Pacific - a region that is naturally iron-poor and therefore likely to be most affected by human deposits - ship emissions now account for 70 per cent of soluble iron from human activity, with the burning of biomass and coal accounting for the rest. Shipping's share will rise as traffic continues to grow and regulations restrict coal and biomass emissions.Can we learn anything from this unintentional experiment? Baker thinks not. The process isn't scientifically useful, he says, because the uncontrolled nature of the iron makes it difficult to draw meaningful comparisons.The depositions are unlikely to be harmful at current levels, he says, but given the uncertainties, I just don't know how much these iron emissions would have to increase before there was demonstrable harm to an ecosystem, or benefit in terms of carbon uptake, for that matter. -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Re: Nickel nanoparticles catalyse reversible hydration of carbon dioxide for mineralization carbon capture and storage - Catalysis Science Technology (RSC Publishing)
Dear all Thank you for your interest in our work and your comments. To clarify some of the misunderstanding in the process conditions that I'd like to clarify. When we bubble CO2 in water with and without the nanoparticles, we observed that there is more CO2 in the nanoparticle system than in pure water. We also observed that there was HCO3- ions on the surface of the Ni nanoparticles surface, we thus explained that this enhancement could be due to adsorption of the HCO3- (from the acid) onto the Ni surface. We in no place claim the formation of CO3-- ions, to be clear on this point the system we are addressing in this article is at a acidic pH (5). Thus there is only carbonic acid species present no bicarbonate or carbonate system as they exist at higher pH values. Now coming to the point of mineralization. We are currently working on this (as explained by Dr Siller, previously) and would like to use silicates as our metal source (Ca2+ or Mg2+). Regarding the confusion of sea or oceanic system. We do not tend to imply the use of Ni nanoparticles in the ocean or any thing around it. The relation with sea urchin (or the marine environment) is just that, the use of Ni to study the hydration reaction we triggered by the studies done on the sea urchin by Dr Siller and my other colleagues. Our major application is to use this system as a satellite unit (plant) to an operational point source emitter (for example a power plant). The carbonate mineral thus produced would be used as landfill or in any other useful application. As mentioned above, we are working on the use of silicate sources (terrestrial) for the source of the alkali earth metals (Ca2+ or Mg2+), thus ruling out acidification of the ocean or any relation to the ocean. Hope I was able to explain the application of our technology. If you still have any doubts, please feel free to ask. We will try our level best to clarify any confusion. Thanks to all Kind regards Gaurav On Thursday, 7 February 2013 18:49:41 UTC, Greg Rau wrote: Thanks for responding. I really don't follow this. If I have a beaker of water fully equilibrated with air (CO2) and add your Ni particles, you are saying that more HCO3- and ultimately CO3s will spontaneously be produced. This won't happen unless thermodynamically favored, and if that water if fully equilibrated with air CO2 there is no thermodynamic condition that will force a change in the C chemistry. If your Ni particles are somehow consuming H+ or producing OH- then you've got a driving force, but you still need a source cations to make CaCO3s (am very interested to learn how you cheaply extract cations from silicates.) Otherwise, adding a catalyst to a system at thermodynamic equilibrium does nothing. On the other hand, adding something to seawater that overcomes the natural, chemical inhibition of abiotic CaCO3s precipitation could really cause some serious precipitation and CO2 injection into the atmosphere. No? -Greg From: lidija...@gmail.com javascript: lidija...@gmail.comjavascript: Reply-To: lidija...@gmail.com javascript: lidija...@gmail.comjavascript: Date: Thursday, February 7, 2013 8:32 AM To: geoengineering geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript: Subject: [geo] Re: Nickel nanoparticles catalyse reversible hydration of carbon dioxide for mineralization carbon capture and storage - Catalysis Science Technology (RSC Publishing) With presence of Ni we have increases at the same time trapping of CO2 and increased the rates of conversion to carbonic acid on room temperature and on the atmospheric pressure. We still working to find the best mineralisation pathway - we will use silicates (magnesium calcium silicates) as a source of Ca2+ or Mg2+. While nickel nanoparticles are toxic as already mentioned in the paper we do not propose to spread this around in the enviroment but to have local disposal next to power plant or industrial plant. We made brief cost - 8$ per ton of CO2 if we can recover Ni 99% yield based on current price of nickel. -- 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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to geoeng...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit
