Fair enough criticism--ideas to me seem worth pursuing, however. Maybe we could use the many oil platforms to anchor the ocean pumps as hopefully soon they will be obsolete.
Mike On 9/30/08 7:24 PM, "Alvia Gaskill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I misread your comments. They obviously weren't about the collapsible bag > pumps ability to generate electricity from wave energy. The real problem > with such a system for artificial upwelling of nutrients is the scale > involved, something that cannot be easily demonstrated in a field trial. My > guess is that such a system is infeasible due to the durability issue, > regardless of the material used to construct the pumps. > > The wind turbines as described in the episode "Infinite Winds" seemed > equally fragile to me. Tethered aerostats (blimps) with power cables > providing power to the aerostat have been around for a while, but long term > operation of the nature required for routine generation of electricity has > not been demonstrated either. The producers cleverly used footage of a > blimp operating under relatively calm conditions. Try that experiment when > there are gale force winds or even those from a thunderstorm and it's lights > out for the flying power plant. The program also seemed to confuse the > possibility of power generation from high altitude winds (i.e. those in the > upper troposphere) with those from the blimp in the program that didn't even > make it past the boundary layer at 300 ft. > > I don't want to make it sound like I hated these programs. To the contrary, > I thought they provided the general public an interesting and at times > entertaining introduction to some of these concepts. But for those of us in > the business of vetting such technologies, it has to be gloves off. > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Mike MacCracken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Alvia Gaskill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "David Schnare" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: "Geoengineering" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 5:37 PM > Subject: [geo] Re: Engineering ambient CO2 Capture > > > > Dear Alvia-- > > Sorry, but I disagree. If one can get colder water up, then get marine life, > which essentially activates the biological carbon pump (sinking fecal > pellets and skeletons) without all the problems of iron fertilization, and > generates source of fish given the ocean is emptying of marine life--so > could be source of food. I was surprised the device was not stronger, but > this was just a proof of principle, so only needed a few days of operation. > But seems to me a great way to work to get distributed CO2 out of > atmosphere. > > I also liked the wind turbine idea--again, seems relatively easy to get > going once they get by design hurdles--could put al over the developing > world as a start. And developed as well. > > I still have a few shows to see--but these two concepts seem very > interesting to me. > > Best, Mike > > > On 9/30/08 5:11 PM, "Alvia Gaskill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> I actually looked into a distributed system for capturing emissions from >> homes and other smaller stationary sources using liquid alkaline sorbents. >> In addition to the regeneration costs, the costs per unit go way up as the >> source gets smaller. Hence, the reason why DOE and others have focussed >> their attention on power plants and not homes. I also looked into mobile >> sources. The same issues are relevant. Attempting to apply the air >> capture >> concept to homes as Lackner has also proposed would entail many of the >> same >> scale issues. Sodium hydroxide has never been considered for capturing >> power plant emissions, probably due to its corrosivity, although there may >> be other reasons. So I doubt the system Keith designed has any >> applicability beyond ambient air capture. >> >> The Hungry Ocean Discovery Project Earth episode did show that a >> collapsible >> passive pump (looked like a bunch of garbage bags sewn together) could >> bring >> water from 1000 ft to near the surface, although it was not rugged enough >> and was quickly torn to pieces by the wave actions. However, structural >> integrity issues aside, the intent was not to generate power and getting >> from that concept to a reliable on demand system is still a long ways off. >> Of all the episodes, that one seemed the biggest waste of time and money >> as >> except for the bag test, all they did was sail around on a great big >> expensive boat loaded with scientists. It looked like a Carnival Cruise >> commercial. >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Mike MacCracken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "David Schnare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Cc: "Alvia Gaskill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Geoengineering" >> <[email protected]> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 4:14 PM >> Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Engineering ambient CO2 Capture >> >> >> Dear David--I'd be delighted if it would work, but it just sounds to me >> unlikely it would not work better on a concentrated stream than on diluted >> in air. And having some system on everyone's home--well, one has to make, >> distribute, and service the systems--does not sound trivial to me. >> >> And on cost, it seems to me that the system that now has to be beat is the >> one for ocean uptake shown on the Discovery Channel--deriving its energy >> from the waves. Harvest the fish and sequester the skeletons, and the ones >> one does not catch sink to the bottom. Gives food and carbon sequestration >> (and maybe biofuels too). And it is not dependent on using supposed >> excesses >> of nutrients in the oceans--supposed in that they may well get used >> downstream somewhere else. And no need to go buy and distribute the iron. >> Just make something that is strong enough for the ocean environment, even >> if >> it needs a floatation collar to hold it up. >> >> Mike MacCracken >> >> >> >> >> On 9/30/08 10:25 AM, "David Schnare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Mike: >>> >>> Not all processes are stochiometrically efficient, but even if such a >>> method were, it may be more efficient to use the approach in a manner >>> that scavenges power otherwise not necessarily available to the grid. >>> I have no idea if this could work, but imagine one square meter per >>> person of capture surface on top of every house, driven by a wind >>> generator designed to work only with the capture device. Or imagine >>> use of it under bridges, capturing the power of wind or water, or in >>> tidal environments, on ships or even on the roof of cars. >>> >>> No one would want to exclude use of such a technique on facilities >>> where the stream of CO2 is most concentrated, but we should not >>> disregard the potential of a distributed approach either. >>> >>> d. >>> >>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 10:12 AM, Mike MacCracken <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> wrote: >>>> What I would like to know is why aim this approach at scavenging CO2 >>>> from >>>> the open air when there are so many opportunities to do this in >>>> concentrated >>>> streams of power plants. That is where such efforts should be economical >>>> first. Great to want to do it from the open air, but if carbon capture >>>> and >>>> sequestration is not economically viable in power plants (yet), how can >>>> it >>>> possibly be viable in the open air? >>>> >>>> Mike MacCracken >>>> >>>> >>>> On 9/30/08 9:58 AM, "David Schnare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Alvia: >>>>> >>>>> Sorry, but I'm a cheer leader on this kind of solution. Prof. Keith >>>>> has helped open a door that will result in further improvements and a >>>>> carbon-cost-efficient approach, even if it is only one-fourth as >>>>> cost-efficient as the report. They have not hit the wall - aren't any >>>>> where near it yet. So, kudo's to them and hazzah hazzah. Now, we >>>>> hope they go back to work and make it still better. >>>>> >>>>> David. >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 9:48 AM, Alvia Gaskill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> I wouldn't be rushing out to buy balloons and confetti just yet (I >>>>>> have >>>>>> a >>>>>> better use for balloons anyway as you know). As noted on his website >>>>>> www.ucalgary.ca/~keith/AirCapture.html, the energy costs of solution >>>>>> regeneration and compression were not included in the $96/ton CO2 >>>>>> estimate >>>>>> given. This is from the ES&T paper >>>>>> > http://www.ucalgary.ca/~keith/papers/97.Stolaroff.AirCaptureContactor.e.pd>>>>> > > f >>>>>> so if the other one that requires a pass code says different, I would >>>>>> like >>>>>> to know. The ES&T paper also says that the regeneration and >>>>>> subsequent >>>>>> steps would likely also cost at least another $96/ton CO2 and that the >>>>>> entire system would have to use "carbon-neutral" electricity to >>>>>> operate. >>>>>> >>>>>> DOE estimates the cost for an oxy fuel coal combustion CO2 >>>>>> capture/regeneration system at around $50/ton >>>>>> > http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/pubs/PC%20Oxyfuel%20Combustion%20V>>>>> > > o >>>>>> lu >>>>>> me%20I%20Final%20Revision%201.pdf. >>>>>> So the air capture system described is about 4X more expensive than >>>>>> one >>>>>> of >>>>>> the idealized replacement technologies for current day coal plants. >>>>>> >>>>>> Setting aside the lack of carbon-neutral electricity sources for such >>>>>> systems, that means the total cost is at least $200/ton CO2 or >>>>>> $733/ton >>>>>> C. >>>>>> If one wanted to remove one billion tons of carbon (I can't tell if >>>>>> it's >>>>>> tons or tonnes we are talking about here) from the air per year, the >>>>>> cost >>>>>> would be $733 billion. And as we now know, getting Congress to >>>>>> approve >>>>>> spending $700 billion isn't as easy as once thought. >>>>>> >>>>>> I do appreciate Keith attempting to explain the differences between >>>>>> his >>>>>> research and the demonstrations conducted for the Discovery Channel, >>>>>> which >>>>>> ignored sorbent regeneration altogether and thus, left a misleading >>>>>> impression that this technology was ready for full scale deployment >>>>>> http://www.ucalgary.ca/~keith/acnote.html . My review of that program >>>>>> was >>>>>> going to hit that one pretty hard. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Schnare" >>>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>> To: "geoengineering" <[email protected]> >>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 8:55 AM >>>>>> Subject: [geo] Engineering ambient CO2 Capture >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Cheers to David Keith (again)! >>>>>> >>>>>> Public Release: 29-Sep-2008 >>>>>> Carbon dioxide 'scrubber' captures greenhouse gases >>>>>> In research conducted at the University of Calgary, energy and >>>>>> environmental system expert David Keith and a team of researchers >>>>>> showed it is possible to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) -- the main >>>>>> greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming -- using a >>>>>> relatively simple machine that can capture the trace amount of CO2 >>>>>> present in the air at any place on the planet. >>>>>> >>>>>> Contact: Mark Lowey >>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>> 403-210-8659 >>>>>> University of Calgary >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> - - - - - -- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Public release date: 29-Sep-2008 >>>>>> >>>>>> Contact: Mark Lowey >>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>> 403-210-8659 >>>>>> University of Calgary >>>>>> >>>>>> Carbon dioxide 'scrubber' captures greenhouse gases >>>>>> >>>>>> U of C scientist captures global warming gas directly from the air; >>>>>> technology could reduce emissions from transportation >>>>>> >>>>>> University of Calgary climate change scientist David Keith and his >>>>>> team are working to efficiently capture the greenhouse gas carbon >>>>>> dioxide directly from the air, using near-commercial technology. >>>>>> >>>>>> In research conducted at the U of C, Keith and a team of researchers >>>>>> showed it is possible to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) the main >>>>>> greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming using a relatively >>>>>> simple machine that can capture the trace amount of CO2 present in the >>>>>> air at any place on the planet. >>>>>> >>>>>> "At first thought, capturing CO2 from the air where it's at a >>>>>> concentration of 0.04 per cent seems absurd, when we are just starting >>>>>> to do cost-effective capture at power plants where CO2 produced is at >>>>>> a concentration of more than 10 per cent," says Keith, Canada Research >>>>>> Chair in Energy and Environment. >>>>>> >>>>>> "But the thermodynamics suggests that air capture might only be a bit >>>>>> harder than capturing CO2 from power plants. We are trying to turn >>>>>> that theory into engineering reality." >>>>>> >>>>>> The research is significant because air capture technology is the only >>>>>> way to capture CO2 emissions from transportation sources such as >>>>>> vehicles and airplanes. These so-called diffuse sources represent more >>>>>> than half of the greenhouse gases emitted on Earth. >>>>>> >>>>>> "The climate problem is too big to solve easily with the tools we >>>>>> have," notes Keith, director of the Institute for Sustainable Energy, >>>>>> Environment and Economy's (ISEEE) Energy and Environmental Systems >>>>>> Group and a professor of chemical and petroleum engineering. >>>>>> >>>>>> "While it's important to get started doing things we know how to do, >>>>>> like wind power nuclear power and 'regular' carbon capture and >>>>>> storage, it's also vital to start thinking about radical new ideas and >>>>>> approaches to solving this problem." >>>>>> >>>>>> Energy-efficient and cost-effective air capture could play a valuable >>>>>> role in complementing other approaches for reducing emissions from the >>>>>> transportation sector, such as biofuels or electric vehicles, says >>>>>> David Layzell, ISEEE's Executive Director. >>>>>> >>>>>> "David Keith and his team have developed a number of innovative ways >>>>>> to achieve the efficient capture of atmospheric carbon. That is a >>>>>> major step in advancing air capture as a solution to a very pressing >>>>>> problem," Layzell says. >>>>>> >>>>>> "David Keith's vision and originality are key factors in our ranking >>>>>> this year as the top engineering school in Canada for sustainability >>>>>> initiatives, both in terms of research and curriculum," says Elizabeth >>>>>> Cannon, Dean of the Schulich School of Engineering. "Leaders like this >>>>>> are not commonplace, and we are proud to get behind this kind of >>>>>> leadership at the Schulich School." >>>>>> >>>>>> Air capture is different than the carbon capture and storage (CCS) >>>>>> technology which is a key part of the Alberta and federal governments' >>>>>> strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. CCS involves installing >>>>>> equipment at, for example, a coal-fired power plant to capture carbon >>>>>> dioxide produced during burning of the coal, and then pipelining this >>>>>> CO2 for permanent storage underground in a geological reservoir. >>>>>> >>>>>> Air capture, on the other hand, uses technology that can capture no >>>>>> matter where the capture system is located the CO2 that is present >>>>>> in ambient air everywhere. >>>>>> >>>>>> "A company could, in principle, contract with an oilsands plant near >>>>>> Fort McMurray to remove CO2 from the air and could build its air >>>>>> capture plant wherever it's cheapest China, for example and the >>>>>> same amount of CO2 would be removed," Keith says. >>>>>> >>>>>> Keith and his team showed they could capture CO2 directly from the air >>>>>> with less than 100 kilowatt-hours of electricity per tonne of carbon >>>>>> dioxide. Their custom-built tower was able to capture the equivalent >>>>>> of about 20 tonnes per year of CO2 on a single square metre of >>>>>> scrubbing material the average amount of emissions that one person >>>>>> produces each year in the North American-wide economy. >>>>>> >>>>>> "This means that if you used electricity from a coal-fired power >>>>>> plant, for every unit of electricity you used to operate the capture >>>>>> machine, you'd be capturing 10 times as much CO2 as the power plant >>>>>> emitted making that much electricity," Keith says. >>>>>> >>>>>> The U of C team has devised a new way to apply a chemical process >>>>>> derived from the pulp and paper industry cut the energy cost of air >>>>>> capture in half, and has filed two provisional patents on their >>>>>> end-to- >>>>>> end air capture system. >>>>>> >>>>>> The technology is still in its early stage, Keith stresses. "It now >>>>>> looks like we could capture CO2 from the air with an energy demand >>>>>> comparable to that needed for CO2 capture from conventional power >>>>>> plants, although costs will certainly be higher and there are many >>>>>> pitfalls along the path to commercialization." >>>>>> >>>>>> Nevertheless, the relatively simple, reliable and scalable technology >>>>>> that Keith and his team developed opens the door to building a >>>>>> commercial-scale plant. >>>>>> >>>>>> Richard Branson, head of Virgin Group, has offered a $25-million prize >>>>>> for anyone who can devise a system to remove the equivalent of one >>>>>> billion tonnes of carbon dioxide or more every year from the >>>>>> atmosphere for at least a decade. >>>>>> >>>>>> Keith and his team's research this summer, which included an outdoor >>>>>> test of their capture tower in McMahon Stadium in Calgary as a >>>>>> dramatic setting, is featured in an episode of Discovery Channel's new >>>>>> "Project Earth" series on television. >>>>>> >>>>>> The series has the largest budget of any in Discovery Channel's >>>>>> history, and it may attract a global viewership of more than 100 >>>>>> million. The episode on Keith's research isn't scheduled to be >>>>>> broadcast in Canada until the second Friday of January 2009, but it >>>>>> has already aired in the U.S. and is available on Discovery Channel's >>>>>> website (http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/project-earth/project- >>>>>> earth.html ); click on "Episodes." >>>>>> >>>>>> ### >>>>>> >>>>>> Technical details of the air capture technology are available at: >>>>>> www.ucalgary.ca/~keith/AirCapture.html >>>>>> >>>>>> Keith is available today (Monday, Sept. 29) to respond to media calls. >>>>>> Please contact either person below to arrange an interview. Photos of >>>>>> Keith with the carbon capture tower are also available. >>>>>> >>>>>> MEDIA CONTACTS: >>>>>> >>>>>> Mark Lowey, Communications Director >>>>>> Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy >>>>>> Phone: 403-210-8659 >>>>>> Cell: 403-990-6986 >>>>>> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>> >>>>>> Hollie Roberts, Executive Assistant to David Keith >>>>>> ISEEE Energy and Environmental Systems Group >>>>>> Phone: 403-210-8857 >>>>>> Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>>> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >>> > > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
