Ok, so what do you think the cost per tonne of carbon dioxide removed by your method would be?
Obviously it's going to have to be better than $15USD per tonne to be worth while. Though I don't suspect you aren't far enough along for a cost analysis yet? On 2/16/07, Frederick Sparber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Michel Jullian wrote. > > Charring works I agree but it retains only 50 percent of the biomass carbon. > Right the pyrolysis creates CO + H2 + pyroligneous acids etc that reacts with the atmospheric O2 which I found with my early biomass work was enough to self-power a unit that augered biomass through a stainless steel tube heated to 1200-1400 F with the off gas and acids wet scrubbed. > >Half-charred idea: how about pressing the micro-algae for their oil and then charring the press-cake to make charcoal? > If pressing retains 60% of the carbon, the whole process could sequester 80% of the captured carbon! > Vacuum or inert gas (N2) pyrolysis can do that. > > BTW, are we set on high yield salt water micro-algae http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algaculture for the CO2 capture? > It's hard to grow seaweed in livestock watering tanks, and water evaporation (about 12,000-15,000 gallons/acre-day) makes large desert algae ponds rather impractical > > It seems less fuss than macro-algae (seaweeds), and can be grown anywhere on the ocean surface not just in shallow areas. > The use of floated "seine" ponds in fresh or sea water would make large scale harvesting more practical. No? > > As I said if it turned out to be more economical we could also harvest the open sea phytoplankton > (which we could re-seed to help natural reproduction), using floating multi-km2 fine-mesh nets >. > Wouldn't it be nice if a self-powered harvesting/processing supertanker departing empty from a middle east port could arrive full at a US port? :) > Lets get Nick Palmer across the "Chunnel" from you to ask Sir Richard Branson that question. Fred >. > Michel > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Frederick Sparber" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "vortex-l" <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 10:46 AM > Subject: Re: [Vo]: Re: The $25 Million Branson Climate Prize > > > >I see your point Nick, harvesting algae using a floating horizontal fine-mesh seine > > as an algae pond to sequester atmospheric CO2 followed by charring the algae is > > a seine idea. > > Since Michel is closer to the Seine.... and you are closer to Branson. :-) > > > > The millions of acres in the US that are in "set aside acreage" that are > > brush-hogged so the farmer can collect up to $30.00/acre (or are > > brush-hogged to keep the place looking good) that oxidize releasing > > CO2, could be covered with a fiberglass mat or such to generate "slash-and-char > > bio-char in situ. > > > > Fred > > > > http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/geowissenschaften/bericht-555 16.html > > > > "Slash-and-burn, which is commonly used in many parts of the world to prepare fields for crops, releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Slash-and-char, on the other hand, actually reduces greenhouse gases, Lehmann said, by sequestering huge amounts of carbon for thousands of years and substantially reducing methane and nitrous oxide emissions from soils. > > > > "The result is that about 50 percent of the biomass carbon is retained," Lehmann said. "By sequestering huge amounts of carbon, this technique constitutes a much longer and significant sink for atmospheric carbon dioxide than most other sequestration options, making it a powerful tool for long-term mitigation of climate change. In fact we have calculated that up to 12 percent of the carbon emissions produced by human activity could be offset annually if slash-and-burn were replaced by slash-and-char." > > > > In addition, many biofuel production methods, such as generating bioenergy from agricultural, fish and forestry waste, produce bio-char as a byproduct. "The global importance of a bio-char sequestration as a byproduct of the conversion of biomass to bio-fuels is difficult to predict but is potentially very large," he added. " > > > > Nick Palmer wrote: > >> > >> > >> Here's three more websites (particularly the first one) that extol the apparently huge benefits of bio-char charcoal in > soils. If the char was created from pyrolysed algae that was fattened on fossil fuel sourced > >> CO2, we could be on our way to a share of $25 million! > >> Can anyone do some numbers? > >> > >> http://www.css.cornell.edu/faculty/lehmann/terra_preta/TerraPretahome.htm > >> > >> http://www.innovations-report.de/html/berichte/geowissenschaften/bericht-555 16.html > >>> http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU05/05947/EGU05-J-05947.pdf > >>
