Note to future prize sponsors: selecting 10 technologies in YR 1 from which one winner will be chosen in YR 10 runs the risk of ignoring new and potentially better ideas that arise in the interim. Imagine selecting a winning computer technology from ideas that are ten years old? Much better to have an annual prize of say $2M for the next ten years or longer, thus truly leveraging and encouraging ingenuity and new advancements in the technology. Interesting that those still in the VEC running have been very quite about their progress. No pressure, but the planet eagerly awaits your winning technology. -Greg ________________________________ From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Oliver Tickell [oliver.tick...@kyoto2.org] Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 9:11 AM To: RAU greg Cc: david.app...@gmail.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com; m2des...@cablespeed.com Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Meanwhile, in CDR news...
>From David A's article: "One interesting initiative is the Virgin Earth Challenge, which was launched in 2007. Sponsored by Richard Branson, it offers $25m to whoever can demonstrate a sustainable and scalable design to permanently remove a billion tonnes of carbon from the air every year for 10 years. Some 2600 groups applied to the challenge and last November the finalists were picked – six from the US and one each from Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, Switzerland and Canada – who now have five years in which to win the prize." I think all involved were expecting the winner to be announced a few years ago. It seems to be dragging out unnecessarily. Since after all, the whole predicate of this is that urgent action is needed! Oliver. -- Oliver Tickell Kyoto2 - for an effective climate agreement. On 03/06/2013 16:59, RAU greg wrote: Thanks. Yes, lots of great ideas out there. Speaking of the Virgin Earth Challenge (apparently the only CDR game in town), what the heck happened to the prize? Did they quietly select a winner, split the money among finalists, or say "sorry, no winner, thanks for all of the great ideas, we were just kidding."??? For all of the initial splash, the VEC seemed to end very somberly. Given the importance of the topic and Branson's apparent enthusiasm, why? -Greg ________________________________ From: Oliver Tickell <oliver.tick...@kyoto2.org><mailto:oliver.tick...@kyoto2.org> To: gh...@sbcglobal.net<mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net> Cc: david.app...@gmail.com<mailto:david.app...@gmail.com>; geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; m2des...@cablespeed.com<mailto:m2des...@cablespeed.com> Sent: Mon, June 3, 2013 2:42:47 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Meanwhile, in CDR news... But why no mention of CDR by accelerated rock weathering (AGR)? This is one of the solutions selected by the Virgin Challenge - the one from Netherlands. And it is being promoted by Olaf Schuilling, who is a member of this Geoengineering Group. This is a low tech, low cost approach - which consists of mining olivine bearing rock, grinding it up to approx 0.1mm, and spreading it land / coast where it will completely weather away over a period of under 10 years, converting CO2 to bicarbonate in solution. All for ~$10/tCO2. Emissions for mining, transport, grinding, just a few % of the CO2 gain. So what's not to include about it? Oliver. On 02/06/2013 20:29, RAU greg wrote: Thanks, David, very nice review. Where our technology departs from the higher profile abiotic methods you discuss is: 1) expensively concentrated CO2 is not formed (or stored), 2) reactions occur at ambient T and P - exotic chemicals and conditions are avoided (so far), 3) excess ocean rather than excess air CO2 can be mitigated, avoiding the need for more complex air scrubbing technology. Why go to the added expense/effort of getting air CO2 into solution to then do chemistry when vast areas of the surface ocean are already supersaturated in CO2? Doing the chemistry there completely avoids the giant land footprint and energy required for air scrubbing that you mention, as well as avoids the need for molecular CO2 sequestration or use. Obviously, the safety of doing this in the ocean needs to be researched, but generating ocean alkalinity would seem an improvement over our current ocean acidification "program". I'm not alone in my thinking; this builds on Kheshgi (1995), House et al. (2007), and Harvey (2008) among others. -Greg ________________________________ From: David Appell <david.app...@gmail.com><mailto:david.app...@gmail.com> To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> Cc: m2des...@cablespeed.com<mailto:m2des...@cablespeed.com> Sent: Sun, June 2, 2013 10:55:22 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Meanwhile, in CDR news... Mark: I have an article in this month's Physics World magazine that answers some of these questions: “Mopping Up Carbon,” Physics World, June 2013, pp. 23-27. http://www.davidappell.com/articles/PWJun13Appell-air_capture.pdf David On 6/2/2013 8:05 AM, Mark Massmann wrote: > I'm wondering if anyone can respond to these questions: > > I could be missing this, but how long is it estimated to take for the devices > to capture each ton of CO2? If the systems were installed to capture coal > plant emissions, I'd imagine that the capture rate would be maximized. > However installing the systems outside of those sources might lower the > capture rate to the point that the system becomes impractical (i.e. like > installing a wind farm in a location that's simply not windy enough on > average) -- 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<mailto:unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto: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<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto: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<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto: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. -- 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.