Group - The point is that DOE should be spending $6million on more options than just the deep-earth supercritical gas version preferred by the oil industry. You can adjust the suggested Amendment to include the option you prefer. My draft includes two options which might share the oil industry term "geologic."
Peter - Please do not suggest storing uncontained liquid CO2 below 3,000 meters to anyone associated with the U.S. Government. They will dismiss you instantly and never want to hear from you again. Their concern is that uncontained CO2 continues to dissolve back into the ocean even while sheets of hydrate form at the CO2-water interface and sink into the liquid CO2, displacing the liquid CO2, perhaps causing it to overflow the "basin." The uncontained CO2 hydrate will also continue to dissolve into whatever unsaturated seawater contacts it. You'll notice we suggest research on contained CO2-hydrate.
Greg - In the unique instance of the biogas from an Ocean Forest ecosystem, we already have 90% CO2 at no extra expense to the CH4, food, and biodiversity production. That is $0/tonne to produce the 90% CO2. The expense of liquefying pure CO2 is less than the value of the recovered CH4 (the other 10%).
Mark
---------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [geo] Tilting at the DE-FOA-0001037 windmill to increase
carbon storage options
From: Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net>
Date: Tue, February 04, 2014 2:03 pm
To: "pcfl...@ualberta.ca" <pcfl...@ualberta.ca>,
"geoengineering@googlegroups.com" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
--Yes, but you have to spend $80-$100/tonne to make that CO2 from most waste sources. Since no one wants to pay this, I don't see a great need to worry about where to store it. Nor do we have to worry about this if we are converting the waste CO2 to organic or inorganic compounds without concentrating (and then storing) molecular CO2.If one is really concerned about marine ecosystems (e.g., Hawaii) one can spontaneously convert CO2 in the power plant tail pipe to Ca(HCO3)2aq using wet mineral carbonate or maybe even silicate scrubbing and add this to the ocean. Thus, CO2 captured and stored in non-molecular form - check; the alkalinity added to the the ocean helps offset the biogeochem effects of fossil energy's legacy to the sea - ocean acidification - check. Where's DOE's multi $M FOA to study this option?Greg
From: Peter Flynn <peter.fl...@ualberta.ca>
To: gh...@sbcglobal.net; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2014 12:03 PM
Subject: RE: [geo] Tilting at the DE-FOA-0001037 windmill to increase carbon storage options
--Deep ocean injection is one option. I think the critical depth is 3000 m; below that the CO2 remains a separate phase and would sink to the bottom. Deep ocean residence time on average is 600 to 1000 years, but zones of the ocean are more isolated from currents and would have a longer residence time. The pool of CO2 on the ocean floor would impact biota.PeterPeter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for EngineersDepartment of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of Albertacell: 928 451 4455From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Greg Rau
Sent: February-04-14 12:20 PM
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo] Tilting at the DE-FOA-0001037 windmill to increase carbon storage optionsHappy to help you tilt at the DOE windmill, but the problem is much larger than this FOA. The problem is the assumption that supercritical CO2 can be affordably produced from waste sources in the first place. Until (if) that is solved, what to do with such CO2 seems rather secondary (also scary considering the volatility of conc CO2 at ambient T and P).What needs to happen is R&D on reacting CO2 out of waste streams to make stable/useful compounds other than conc CO2, the standard approach in mitigating all other gaseous pollutants. How/why DOE has avoided doing this for CO2 mitigation is the "burning" question ;-)GregFrom: "markcap...@podenergy.org" <markcap...@podenergy.org>
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com; Greg Rau <r...@llnl.gov>
Sent: Monday, February 3, 2014 8:04 PM
Subject: [geo] Tilting at the DE-FOA-0001037 windmill to increase carbon storage optionsGreg and Group,The U.S. Department of Energy plans another $6million to check out deep-earth supercritical CO2 storage. If you have the ear of a State Governor or Senator, you could send them the attached.State interests come in two flavors:1. Coastal states and territories without oil and gas wells (and therefore not likely to have locations for deep-earth supercritical gas storage) including: Hawaii, Florida, Maine, southeastern Alaska, Puerto Rico, etc.2. Coastal states with fracking produced oil because the oil industry will employ CO2 enhanced oil production to keep the wells flowing longer while "storing" CO2. The DOE funded research would reduce the risk of CO2 leaking, so California might want DOE covering 80% of the research cost. States in this boat include: California and Gulf Coast states.The logic for extending the definition of "geologic storage" is in the sample letter.MarkMark E. Capron, PE
Ventura, California
www.PODenergy.org--
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.
