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.


Reply via email to