In response to numbered topics: 1) We think that a significant # of coast power plant CO2 could be mitigated for <$30/tonne CO2. Why hasn't this been pursued? - ask DOE who have declined every proposal we've offered.
2) Actually it could be used for CDR: biomass + O2 + heat --> energy + CO2 ---> CO2 + seawater + limestone ---> ocean alkalinity. I'm a little leery about doing analogous AWL downstream from pyrolysis given all of the nasty volatiles generated that would wind up in the ocean. For similar reasons NG-fired would be preferred over coal-fired power plants for AWL. 3) Adding alkalinity to the the ocean could to wonders for offseting the effects of ocean acidification. So biomass ---> biochar/land fertility, or biomass ---> ocean alkalinity/OA mitigation? Why not both, AWL can handle coastal biomass energy, biochar can handle inland biomass energy: trillions of dollars in benefits for both camps. Deal? I'll have my people to draw up the paperwork and we'll contact our friends at the WTO ;-) Greg >________________________________ > From: Ronal W. Larson <rongretlar...@comcast.net> >To: Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@gmail.com>; Greg Rau <r...@llnl.gov> >Cc: Keith Henson <hkeithhen...@gmail.com>; Elton Sherwin ><esher...@carbonzeroinstitute.org>; "tim.kru...@oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk" ><tim.kru...@oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk>; Geoengineering ><geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> >Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 2:40 PM >Subject: Re: [geo] McDermott White Paper (2002) on accelerated carbonate >weathering as a CCS approach > > > >Ken, list etal (adding Greg Rau, who probably is closest to this) > > >1. The price per ton CO2 given at the bottom of Table 3 in the McDermott >paper given by Ken a few days ago came to $20.70/ton CO2. Converting to 2013 >$ (about 30% more over the 2001 $ used), metric units and carbon (rather than >CO2, using the ratio 44/12) gives about $100/Tonne C today. This is, I >believe, quite attractive compared to other numbers being floated around for >CCS. > I have been asked by a friend whether there has been any >commercialization attempt at this since 2002 - and if not why not? > This is the only question; the next two items are just comments - >translating this over to the world of biochar. > > >2. This doesn’t yet fall into the category of CDR, but could with biomass >replacing coal (then probably should not be called BECCS or BECS, since the >term CCS seems best reserved for underground CO2 storage.). Needing smaller >plants to keep biomass transport cost down, that results in lower efficiency, >has anybody estimated a CDR costing? Maybe $125-$150/tonne C? (Asking for a >scaling factor when plant size falls by a factor of 10) Note this could be >the back end as well of some biomass electrical generating systems where >pyrolysis rather than combustion is employed; then about half the C in the >input biomass would be released as CO2. > > >3. Because charcoal is not 100% carbon, one would have to pay less than >about $125 /tonne of char to receive a break-even sequestration credit of >$100/tonne C. (Or stated conversely, if you paid $100/tonne char, the >sequestration value should not be more than $80/tonne C (in a societal sense, >the farmer/forester, will of course try to minimize the cost of the char > The point of these quick computations is to say that there would be lots >of farmers and foresters willing to put char in the ground if the going rate >for sequestration were roughly $100/tonne C (or $27/tonne CO2 or $80/tonne >char). That is - I am claiming the long term value to the farmer/forester and >society would exceed these “$100” numbers. > > >Ron > > > >On Dec 13, 2013, at 12:06 PM, Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu> >wrote: > >The basic idea is: >> >> >>CO2 (gas) + CaCO3 (solid) + H2O (liquid) --> Ca2+ + 2 HCO3- (dissolved in >>the ocean) >> >> >> >> >> >> >>_______________ >>Ken Caldeira >> >>Carnegie Institution for Science >>Dept of Global Ecology >> >>260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA >> >>+1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab >>https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira >> >> >> >> >>On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Keith Henson <hkeithhen...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>Elton, could you real quickly go through the chemistry involved? >>> >>>I miss seeing how CaCO3 absorbs more CO2, but my chemistry is rusty by >>>many decades. >>> >>>Keith >>> >>> >>>On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Elton Sherwin >>><esher...@carbonzeroinstitute.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> I am very interested in using limestone to sequester CO2 in power plants. >>>> This approach--and related limestone based approaches--seem to have >>>> promise. >>>> And as Ken says they look more affordable than competing technologies. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Not sure how our little underfund institute can help, but let me know if I >>>> can. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Elton Sherwin >>>> >>>> Executive Director, Carbon Zero Institute >>>> >>>> Cell: 650.823.9221 >>>> >>>> www.CarbonZeroInstitute.org >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com >>>> [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira >>>> Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2013 8:30 AM >>>> To: tim.kru...@oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk >>>> Cc: geoengineering; Andrew Lockley >>>> >>>> >>>> Subject: [geo] McDermott White Paper (2002) on accelerated carbonate >>>> weathering as a CCS approach >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Tim, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> As per your request to Andrew, attached is an analysis of using accelerated >>>> limestone weathering to sequester CO2 from power plant flue gases and >>>> dispose of it in the ocean, with the carbon acidity neutralized by the >>>> alkalinity provided by the calcium in the calcium carbonate. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> They concluded that this approach was both economically viable and had much >>>> lower energy overheads than did "conventional" CCS with amine scrubbers and >>>> suchlike. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This is an area in which Greg Rau has done a lot of work, and in which I >>>> have done some work: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Greg_Rau/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Ken >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> PS. McDermott Technologies, Inc, used to own Babcock and Wilcox, the >>>> nuclear engineering company, but spun this off in 2010: >>>> http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-McDermott_to_spin_off_BandW-0707104.html >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________ >>>> Ken Caldeira >>>> >>>> Carnegie Institution for Science >>>> >>>> Dept of Global Ecology >>>> >>>> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA >>>> >>>> +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu >>>> >>>> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab >>>> >>>> https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 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. >>>> 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. >>>> 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. >>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. >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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
