Re choice of minerals, it must really depend on what is locally
available so as to minimise transport costs and emissions - and
particularly to include readily available stocks of mine waste, for
example from nickel mines, diamond mines. Mine wastes are great as
there's lots of them, there is no
Actually this option does not look too bad on first sight - low cost,
low tech, so that's a good start, and the chemistry looks right too.
Biggest problem is the delay of approx 100y before the results come
through, if I read the paper right. That's a long time for us to have
to wait. Also if we
Somebody should do a preliminary cost analysis comparing the cost and
effectiveness (and uncertainty therein) for all of these proposals, as a
function of setting, discount rate, etc.
These options are not alternatives but complements. Doing more of one does
not preclude doing more of another.
There is a delay if air capture is the objective - limestone dissolution
takes place in the subsurface waters and alkalinity is generated, which can
effect air capture only when upwelling finally brings it in contact with
air. Gas diffusion rate and CO2 dissolution rate will then also affect the
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/engineering-the-eart
h-forums-big-ideas/2303296.aspx?storypage=0
Engineering the Earth: forum's big ideas
BY BREANNA TUCKER
26 Sep, 2011 12:00 AM
Shading the Earth under a giant umbrella, painting roofs white and
simulating volcanic
Wow, that must win an award for the worst piece of science journalism on
geoengineering ever. Space mirrors colliding with stars? I think not... (I
had to read that 3 times to check it was actually real). Do they not have
science lessons in schools in Australia? ;-)
A
On 26 September 2011
