Sure, if folks don’t mind me repeating this like a broken record. For spontaneous conversion of point source CO2: CO2 + H2O + CaCO3 ---> Ca^2+ + 2HCO3- ---> seawater alkalinity This is simply carbonate weathering conducted in a power plant’s tail pipe, similar to the reaction routinely used for SO2 mitigation. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es102671x
For air CO2: CO2 + 2H2O + CaCO3 + Vdc ---> H2 + 0.5O2 + Ca^2+ + 2HCO3- ---> seawater alkalinity or CO2 + 2H2O +2NaCl + CaCO3 + Vdc ---> H2 + 0.5O2 + CaCl2 + 2Na+ + 2HCO3- ---> seawater alkalinity Some work needed to insure that O2 rather than Cl2 is generated. Some energy recovery possible via H2 + 0.5O2 ---> H2O + Vdc. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es800366q For a version using silicate minerals see: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es0701816 -Greg On 6/3/11 11:49 AM, "Andrew Lockley" <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote: Can you briefly detail the conversion to alkalinity in plain text for the list? Thanks A On 3 Jun 2011 17:58, "Rau, Greg" <r...@llnl.gov> wrote: > Unclear how a discussion of methane and fracking got diverted to deep sea CO2 > lakes, but if you are suggesting that CCS-captured CO2 be stored as pools in > the deep ocean (discussed at some length in Ken’s IPCC chapter: > http://www.ipcc-wg3.de/publications/special-reports/.files-images/SRCCS-Chapter6.pdf), > this seems unlikely to happen any time soon due the high cost of purifying > and transporting the CO2. Even more costly if you are talking about this for > air CO2: > http://www.aps.org/policy/reports/popa-reports/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=244407 > Another option is CO2 emulsion: > http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/05/carbon-seq/Tech%20Session%20Paper%20206.pdf > But If you are serious about abiotic, ocean C storage, it’s much easier, > cheaper, and safer to convert point-source or air CO2 to ocean alkalinity and > store in the water column where it might even help mitigate ocean > acidification: > http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es102671x > http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es800366q > No? > -Greg > > > On 6/3/11 8:26 AM, "kcaldeira-carnegie.stanford.edu > <http://kcaldeira-carnegie.stanford.edu> " <kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu> > wrote: > > People have thought about liquid sealing layers before for CO2 lakes on the > bottom of the ocean, and I think the problem is that nobody has come up with > the right substance. > > It needs to be: > > 1. between the density of seawater and liquid CO2 which is a pretty narrow > density range. > 2. relatively unreactive so can remain in place thousands of years. > 3. relatively impermeable to both seawater and CO2. > > The good news is that the sealant need not be that cheap if you can make the > lakes deep enough. If a CO2-lake is, say, 100 m deep, even at $30/tonCO2, > this is $3000 worth of CO2 per m2, so even if this seal cost $300 per m2, it > would only add 10% to cost of disposal. > > > On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 5:01 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > royalsociety.org/events/Bakerian2011/ > <http://royalsociety.org/events/Bakerian2011/> > <http://royalsociety.org/events/Bakerian2011/> > > From memory ocean storage was pretty safe in theory. Co2 and water dissolve > together to create a mixture more dense than either. > > The demo was pretty cool but I'm on my phone so I can't check if the video is > still up. > > You can pester the lecturer for a YouTube video if you like > > What about earthquake, flood basalt, dissolution into subducting rock, etc? > All a bit unstable and complex for my liking, those great lakes of co2 > sitting down there. Plus, won't it turn marine snow into methane? > > A > > On 3 Jun 2011 12:52, "Stephen Salter" <s.sal...@ed.ac.uk> wrote: >> Andrew >> >> The deep ocean seal I am postulating is a liquid with low miscibility >> with both CO2 and sea water and a density between them. It should self >> heal if punctured but could have quite a high viscosity. Whether or not >> it will work depends only on current velocities. We need to know what >> these are wherever the depth exceeds 700 metres and then see if such a >> magic liquid exists. My guess is that it might work if the deep water >> velocity was below 5 cm per second but we can test for this in small >> tanks in the lab. I know that lots of places have velocities well above >> this but perhaps not all. Like I said we can be picky about the places >> we choose. Undisturbed ooze might be a good indicator. I would rather >> have a small but defined leakage than something we thought was perfect >> but which then suddenly failed, hence the need for self healing. >> >> Can you tell me any more about what was said at The Royal Society and >> which date it was? Did anyone mention liquid sealing layers? >> >> Stephen >> >> Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design >> Institute for Energy Systems >> School of Engineering >> Mayfield Road >> University of Edinburgh EH9 3JL >> Scotland >> Tel +44 131 650 5704 <tel:%2B44%20131%20650%205704> >> Mobile 07795 203 195 <tel:07795%20203%20195> >> www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs <http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs> >> <http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs> >> >> >> On 02/06/2011 20:37, Andrew Lockley wrote: >>> >>> It's not that simple. This issue was covered at the royal society. >>> >>> If reserves are deep enough, they will be kept stable by pressure. As >>> long as they're not perturbed and don't diffuse into anything, you >>> should be ok. >>> >>> If you're relying on pressure containment, then fracking is a problem. >>> However, the pressure reservoir is unstable anyway so why use it. Use >>> a deep saline aquifer instead. >>> >>> I don't trust deep ocean disposal as there's no seal. The ocean is too >>> dynamic to mess with in this way. Doesn't pass the gut feel test. >>> Maybe that's voodoo engineering, but it's served me pretty well. Only >>> useful as an emergency option, but the storage isn't the hard bit, as >>> I see it. >>> >>> A >>> >>> On 2 Jun 2011 20:18, "Josh Horton" <joshuahorton...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:joshuahorton...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> > Michael writes in an earlier email that "These are the same oil fields >>> > that are being proposed for massive CO2 geological storage. Fracking >>> > is rapidly taking that option off the table." I know a little about >>> > CCS but not much about fracking - if this is a zero-sum game then >>> > we've got a problem. Oil/gas, coal, and power plants do not neatly >>> > overlap, so if fracking comes at the expense of CCS, we could see >>> > conflicting interests within the broader resource extraction industry. >>> > >>> > Josh Horton >>> > joshuahorton...@gmail.com <mailto:joshuahorton...@gmail.com> > >>> > >>> > >>> > On Jun 2, 1:10 pm, Stephen Salter <s.sal...@ed.ac.uk >>> <mailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>> wrote: >>> >> Mike >>> >> >>> >> We could be picky about our trenches. We do not have to be all that >>> >> deep, only about 700 metres. >>> >> >>> >> Stephen >>> >> >>> >> Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design >>> >> Institute for Energy Systems >>> >> School of Engineering >>> >> Mayfield Road >>> >> University of Edinburgh EH9 3JL >>> >> Scotland >>> >> Tel +44 131 650 5704 <tel:%2B44%20131%20650%205704> >>> >> Mobile 07795 203 195www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs >>> >> <http://195www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs> <http://195www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs> >>> <http://195www.see.ed.ac.uk/%7Eshs> > >>> >> >>> >> On 02/06/2011 17:00, Mike MacCracken wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> > But aren't deep ocean trenches generally subduction zones, so subject >>> >> > to rather massive earthquakes, as recently occurred off Japan? >>> >> >>> >> > Mike >>> >> >>> >> > On 6/2/11 5:42 AM, "Stephen Salter" <s.sal...@ed.ac.uk >>> <mailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> > Hi All >>> >> >>> >> > I used to think that if gas fields had not leaked their natural >>> >> > gas then they should not leak CO2 but I can now see that this >>> >> > argument would be changed by fracking. >>> >> >>> >> > However if the pressure is high enough the density of CO2 is >>> >> > higher than that of sea water. If you fill a deep sea depression >>> >> > with it and then cover the CO2 puddle with a material which >>> >> > prevents or greatly slows diffusion of CO2 to the sea water then >>> >> > most of it should stay put. The cover could be a layer of liquid >>> >> > with a density intermediate between the CO2 and sea water and >>> very >>> >> > low miscibility with both. This would allow it to self repair. >>> >> > We could also stab pipes through it to add more CO2 of to >>> release >>> >> > some in order to offset Lowell Wood's overdue ice age. We >>> need to >>> >> > look for deep depressions close to where CO2 is being produce or >>> >> > could be concentrated. >>> >> >>> >> > I did suggest this in a previous contribution to the blog quite >>> >> > a while ago but I think that it sank without trace. This is what >>> >> > we want for the CO2. >>> >> >>> >> > Stephen >>> >> >>> >> > Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design >>> >> > Institute for Energy Systems >>> >> > School of Engineering >>> >> > Mayfield Road >>> >> > University of Edinburgh EH9 3JL >>> >> > Scotland >>> >> > Tel +44 131 650 5704 <tel:%2B44%20131%20650%205704> >>> >> > Mobile 07795 203 195 <tel:07795%20203%20195> >>> >> > www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs <http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs> >>> >> > <http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs> >>> <http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/%7Eshs><http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs >>> <http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/%7Eshs> >>> >> > <http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/%7Eshs>> >>> >> >>> >> > On 01/06/2011 21:35, Gregory Benford wrote: >>> >> >>> >> > Michael raises the crucial issue: */Should the oil and gas >>> >> > industry be relied upon at the geological time scale needed >>> >> > for massive CO2 sequestration? >>> >> >>> >> > /*There are measurements Sherry Rowland told me about ~5 >>> years >>> >> > ago, made by his group at UCI, of the methane content of air >>> >> > across Texas & Oklahoma. /He found no difference in methane >>> >> > levels in cities vs oil fields and farms. >>> >> > / >>> >> > He inferred that many oil wells, including spot drillings >>> >> > that yielded no oil, but penetrated fairly deeply, were >>> >> > leaking methane into the air. No one has contradicted this. >>> >> >>> >> > That made me forget CCS in such domes. Thus I went back to >>> >> > working on CROPS, where we know it takes ~1000 years to >>> return >>> >> > to the atmosphere. >>> >> >>> >> > Gregory Benford >>> >> >>> >> > On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 1:25 PM, Michael Hayes >>> >> > <voglerl...@gmail.com <mailto:voglerl...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> > Hi Folks, >>> >> >>> >> > After reading Greg's post, I have spent some time looking >>> >> > into the methane release being caused by "Fracking". Here >>> >> > is a link to a resent film on the subject. >>> >> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZe1AeH0Qz8If you are >>> >> > interested in the methane issue in general, I encourage >>> >> > you to take the time to view this film. I do realize that >>> >> > any "media" based documentary is subject to dispute and >>> >> > debate. However, I bring this to the group for 2 reasons. >>> >> >>> >> > 1) These are the same oil fields that are being proposed >>> >> > for massive CO2 geological storage. Fracking is rapidly >>> >> > taking that option off the table. I have never believed >>> >> > oil field CO2 sequestration was practical. However, this >>> >> > type of information should raise profound questions about >>> >> > the entire concept of geological CO2 sequestration. >>> >> >>> >> > 2) The methane release (GHG effect) from such wide spread >>> >> > use of this drilling method can equal all other >>> >> > anthropogenic GHG sources at the regional level. >>> >> >>> >> > Fracking is a methane wild card which can not be ignored. >>> >> > And, oil field CO2 sequestration is in direct opposition >>> >> > to the current oil and gas industry activities. I believe >>> >> > the question of; */Should the oil and gas industry be >>> >> > relied upon at the geological time scale needed for >>> >> > massive CO2 sequestration?/*, should be asked. The issue >>> >> > of fracking related pollution is important and should not >>> >> > be ignored. However, the issue of paying this industry to >>> >> > provided centuries of massive CO2 sequestration should be >>> >> > viewed with skeptical eyes usually reserved for used car >>> >> > salesmen. I do apologize to all used car salesmen for the >>> >> > comparison. >>> >> >>> >> > Thanks for your patience. >>> >> >>> >> > Michael >>> >> >>> >> > -- >>> >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to >>> >> > the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. >>> >> >>> >> > To view this discussion on the web visit >>> >> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/NGdwcTZVTVBhVkFK. >>> >> >>> >> > To post to this group, send email to >>> >> > geoengineering@googlegroups.com >>> <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. > >>> >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> >> > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com >>> >> > <mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> >>> >> > <mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com >>> >> > <mailto:geoengineering%252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > >>> <mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com >>> <mailto:geoengineering%252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> >>> <mailto:geoengineering%252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com >>> <mailto:geoengineering%25252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > >>> >> > <mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com >>> >> > <mailto:geoengineering%252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> >>> >> > <mailto:geoengineering%252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com >>> >> > <mailto:geoengineering%25252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > >>> <mailto:geoengineering%252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com >>> <mailto:geoengineering%25252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> >>> <mailto:geoengineering%25252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com >>> <mailto:geoengineering%2525252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > >> . > >>> >> > For more options, visit this group at >>> >> > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >>> >> >>> >> > -- >>> >> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the >>> >> > Google Groups "geoengineering" group. >>> >> > To post to this group, send email to >>> >> > geoengineering@googlegroups.com >>> <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. > >>> >> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> >> > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com >>> >> > <mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> >>> >> > <mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com >>> >> > <mailto:geoengineering%252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > >>> <mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com >>> <mailto:geoengineering%252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> >>> <mailto:geoengineering%252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com >>> <mailto:geoengineering%25252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > >. >>> >> > For more options, visit this group at >>> >> > http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >>> >> >>> >> > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >> > The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in >>> >> > Scotland, with registration number SC005336. >>> >> > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in >>> >> Scotland, with registration number SC005336.- Hide quoted text - >>> >> >>> >> - Show quoted text - >>> > >>> > -- >>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "geoengineering" group. >>> > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com >>> <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. > >>> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com >>> <mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> >>> <mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com >>> <mailto:geoengineering%252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > >>> <mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com >>> <mailto:geoengineering%252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> >>> <mailto:geoengineering%252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com >>> <mailto:geoengineering%25252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > >. >>> > For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >>> > >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "geoengineering" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com >>> <mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> >>> <mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com >>> <mailto:geoengineering%252bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > . >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
