Prof Schuiling, list and ccs
1. Thanks for your followup (the 13th) to recent (AWL-related)
comments started by Greg on a "seaweed" paper that had nothing to do with any
aspect of geoengineering, but which did open the topic of biomass for AWL and
then other forms of CDR. All of the subsequent comments have related to CDR; I
apologetically keep this thread title so as to keep our discussion in one place.
My main point is that I whole heartedly agree that we will need many
forms of CDR; biochar is not enough. Most of this below relates to biochar,
because I know so little about the other CDR approaches (and need to learn
more). Here, I am mostly asking about olivine and ways that it can be
combined with biochar (and maybe seaweed).
2. I tried to do a quick study of olivine besides the very useful
attachment you gave, getting these hits (all open-source - mostly to your work)
that I recommend
a. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjUuJt4chyk
b.
http://www.greensand.nl/content/user/1/files/%2B%2B%2BLet%20the%20Earth%20help%20us%20to%20save%20the%20Earth-%20addendum%20Climate%20Change.pdf
c. Schuiling, R.D. and Krijgsman, P. (2006) Enhanced weathering; an effective
and cheap tool
to sequester CO2 . Climatic Change, 74, nrs 1-3, p.349-354
d. http://www.innovationconcepts.eu/res/literatuurSchuiling/enhanced.pdf
3. One of these gave this 1997 cite, which I have been unable to
locate, but which one of the above said gave $15/tonne of something (in 1997).
Can you (anyone) give a URL and/or more on current cost estimates for olivine
placement under different scenarios? Lackner, K.S., Butt, D.P.,
Wendt, C.H., Goff, F., Guthrie, G., 1997. Carbon dioxide disposal in mineral
form. Keeping coal competitive. Los Alamos National Laboratory, LA-UR-97-2094,
74 p
4. One place that covers the combination of rock-dust and biochar is:
http://remineralize.org/blog/magazine/biochar-and-rock-dust-for-nutrient-dense-food-soil-fertility-restoration-and-carbon-sequestration
I cannot tell whether some types of olivine can be good for both
sequestration and the added micronutrients that farmers are looking for. Any
cites available for this triple purpose activity? (Triple meaning
sequestration, increased plant growth, and reduced application costs because of
synergies.)
5. As I said earlier in this thread, there are plenty of references to
the advantages of combining biochar with rock dusts and good places to find
such rock dust, but I have found nothing on the best sources of a rock dust
that also serves the carbon sequestration purpose. Anyone able to help with
that?
6. One biochar expert, Dr. Stephen Joseph in Australia, has written
on the advantages of combined biochar and geologic material (thinking improved
solid state compounds with favorable electrical properties that seem to explain
some biochar benefits) - that evolve naturally after char is placed in soils.
But these may also occur from possible fortuitous reactions as pyrolysis
reactions turn combined input biomass and minerals into a more recalcitrant
char form through pyrolysis. Might this idea have an olivine connection?
7. Michael Hayes has, I think, also mentioned ways that his work on
combined sequestration and ocean biomass could include olivine. Perhaps the
same for Greg. There should be many synergies if we put our minds to it. As
you have pointed out, transportation costs can be kept low, when near oceans or
waterways.
8. Your attachment made reference to the eventual permanent removal of
the olivine-derived CO2 through coral growth. Should there be concerns that
continuing ocean acidification after SRM has started will so damage coral that
it would impact the economics of olivine?
We should all be very impressed by how much you have done to promote
CDR - clearly more than anyone else for olivine. Thanks for all that effort.
Ron
On Sep 21, 2014, at 7:46 AM, Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf) <r.d.schuil...@uu.nl> wrote:
> I wouldn't rely only on biochar (which I also consider an important avenue),
> see a number of different approaches in the attachment, Olaf Schuiling
>
> From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Michael Hayes
> Sent: zondag 21 september 2014 1:39
> To: Ronal W. Larson
> Cc: Andrew Lockley; Geoengineering; Rau, Greg; Michael MacCracken; Ken
> Caldeira
> Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Steam Co-Gasification - Brown Seaweed, Land-Based
> Biomass (+CCS/AWL?)
>
> [AJL1] If you scale this to have any impact on the climate, you'll run out of
> markets for by products.
>
> [RWL1: The most likely bi-product, at least as I understand Michael's
> scheme, is biochar. I have seen statements that biochar could be the world's
> first trillion dollar industry. I would not worry at this time of a market
> for biochar. This of course if the price is right - and that might have to
> include some payment for removing excess atmospheric carbon. I doubt anyone
> on this list thinks that CDR will ever be free. The big question for me is
> whether anyone can see a cheaper approach than biochar (of course taking
> account of out-year soil-related benefits, and including the benefits of
> reversing ocean acidification)? Anyone see a reason that ocean biomass
> should be more costly than land biomass? (No need for land-rent payments, no
> irrigation costs, maybe reduced fertilizer costs, reduced need by the
> ocean-plant for root-related "expense", higher per unit area solar conversion
> efficiency, etc)
>
> [MLH1] There are multiple answers to Andrew's misconceived 'Market' comment.
>
> 1) As to the C sequestration 'market', yes biochar is the most logical (vast
> scale) sequestration path as it addresses soil health and thus expands,
> beyond the marine environment, the overall environmental benefits of the
> marine BECCS operation. Clearly, the global industrial agro market is vast
> and highly innovative means for organic fertilizer/biochar application,
> within the global agro market, are extant. The far reaching out-year
> cultivation benefits of biochar are 'energy free' once applied to the crops.
>
> Beyond the direct profits from actual sales, the potential addition of carbon
> trading credits to the bottom line makes biochar an outstanding product
> option with vast global potential.
>
> There simply is no other 'CDR/CCS/BECCS Related Profitable Product' which
> comes even close to biochar....none! If there was, the IMBECS Protocol would
> call for it instead of biochar.
>
>
>
> 2) The seafood market is also, clearly, a vast market. There are multiple
> volumes of scientific studies on this subject. The following may be useful,
> as a primer, to those not familiar with the subject:
>
> Global Seafood Markets in 2030:Dominated by Aquaculture, with Wild Fish as
> Niche Market Products?
>
> For those that wish to base their opinions on more detailed work, I highly
> recommend:
>
> The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture (UN) or Mariculture: A global
> analysis of production trends since 1950 (Pew)
>
> In brief, organic feed/permiculture based mariculture, as indicated in the
> IMBECS Protocol Draft and the above references, is and will be a significant
> trend and the profits from this sector can possibly provide the majority of
> the financial support for overall marine BECCS operations.
>
>
>
> 3) The global animal feed market can boast of:
>
> "World compound feed production is fast approaching an estimated 1 billion
> tonnes annually. Global commercial feed manufacturing generates an estimated
> annual turnover of over US $370 billion. Commercial production or sale of
> manufactured feed products takes place in more than 130 countries and
> directly employs more than a quarter of a million skilled workers,
> technicians, managers and professionals.".
>
> Biochar can be a useful component in feed and many of the mariculture waste
> products can be used to create a highly nutritious aqua/agro feed(s). All of
> which contain....Carbon. The profits from this sector eclipses the above
> seafood protein market and could pay for large scale ancillary CO2 storage
> options such as AWL or seafloor injection.
>
>
>
> 4) The global fossil fuel market:
>
> "The Energy Information Administration (EIA) released its International
> Energy Outlook 2013 on July 25, reporting that global energy demand will grow
> by 56 percent between 2010 and 2040.".
>
> The above should be apparent in its relevance to the potential market size of
> the IMBECS Protocol/Technology derived bio-fuel products.
>
>
> 5) The global water market:
>
> The resent value of 1 acre/foot of water in S. Cal. has topped $1,600. I'll
> leave it up to the reader to contemplate the true value of fresh water.
>
>
>
> 6) In brief summary of the above, the list of marine BECCS related 'markets'
> can be further extended (significantly) and the
> overwhelmingly....apparent...market size for the long list of marine BECCS
> related products is beyond reasonable questioning. Thus, Andrew's non-cogent
> dictum, concerning running out of markets, is simply not supportable.
>
>
>
> As to the scale of marine BECCS operations needed to have a significant
> environmental effect; At a minimum, marine BECCS can produce carbon negative
> biofuel at a rate of 80 bbls/day/km2. Further, based upon known industrial
> output of land based operations, the following estimates of the marine BECCS
> output is as follows: 6 tons of organic industrial grade fertilizer with
> biochar, 4 tons of aquaculture feed, 300 pounds of organic seafood protein,
> 1.5M gal. of freshwater and 1 ton of salt per day. Other potential products
> and services are currently being evaluated. Such as:
>
> a) MICROBIAL CELLULOSE PRODUCTION BY ACETOBACTER XYLINUM AND ITS APPLICATION
> FOR THE FASHION AND TEXTILE INDUSTRY
>
> b) Tourism and Habitation
>
> c) Biopolymers
>
> d) Synthetic Biology
>
> As there is a profit motive, as well as a motivation for cooperation, built
> into the IMBECS Protocol, rapid expansion up to and beyond 1M km2, within 20
> years, is reasonable to expect. Thus, the entirety of Andrew's pontification,
> on this one daffy issue, is without significant or even singular merit.
>
>
>
>
>
> [AJL2] This hydrogen biological process doesn't scale to climatically
> significant levels with anything like present day technology.
>
> [RWL2] Michael would probably agree with you; I do. But he is not
> proposing "present day technology".
>
> [MLH2] To be precise, the core dark reduction of CO2 knowledge dates back to
> 1940's/1970's and the technology needed to bring dark reduction to the fore,
> and on a vast marine scale, has actually been extant for decades. However, no
> one has seemed to have connected the dots, until the development of the
> IMBECS Protocol work. Also, what exactly is meant by "present day
> technologies" or "climatically significant"? The ambiguity of the entire
> statement is problematic. There is no need for material, engineering nor
> basic scientific breakthroughs to deploy dark reduction on a vast
> scale...today.
>
> Again, allow me the pleasure of repeating myself: Thus, the entirety of
> Andrew's pontification, on this one daffy issue, is without significant or
> even singular merit.
>
>
>
> [AJL3] We'd need to be living in a world with essentially free energy to make
> it viable.
>
> [RWL3] RE comes closer than anything else to "free" (especially comparing to
> fossil, fission and fusion). But Michael is not claiming free. There is a
> plentiful existing market for low priced charcoal. Given the pitiful state
> of the world's soils, the need for recalcitrant carbon far exceeds the
> hundreds of excess gigatonnes of C needing removal.
>
> [MLH3] In the most simplistic words, the vast majority of humans realize that
> the oceanic environment is awash with raw RE. And, dark reduction does not
> actually need a vast/on-goings supply of H2.
>
> Further study of the basic dark reduction biochemistry is recommended to
> anyone who is willing to, on the face of it, accept Andrew's specious view(s)
> concerning the issue of dark reduction of CO2.
>
> This may becoming just way to much fun, but; Again, allow me the pleasure of
> repeating myself; Thus, the entirety of Andrew's pontification, on this one
> daffy issue, is without significant or single merit.
>
>
>
> [AJL4] It would be energetically the equivalent of chemically turning all our
> emissions back into coal and burying it. Absolutely unfeasible.
>
> [RWL4: Melvin Calvin having worked in this area suggests to me that your
> analogy is not the right one. I know (more perhaps than any other on this
> list because of recent off-list conversations with Michael) that his ideas
> are based on solid past experimental work with (dark) biomass and hydrogen
> (to produce sugars/cellulose). Anyone wanting to know of Calvin's (and
> others) work should let Michael or I know.
>
> [MLH5] The obvious lack of detailed (or even topical) knowledge of the
> overall technology, economics and basic biochemical (and other) science(s)
> renders Andrew's "Absolute" statement as simply not being supportable at the
> professional STEM level.
>
> [RWL] So, I would modify your "Absolutely" in the last sentence to "Likely"
> or "Probably" . The concept of dark reactions involving hydrogen having been
> around for such a long time suggests to me that Michael must have a
> breakthrough idea to be successful. He thinks he has such a breakthrough. I
> am way out of my area of expertise and I am not going to work on this topic
> at all, except as it relates to CDR.
>
> [MLH6] The issue of the effectiveness of BECCS is not under serious question
> by the principal actors involved with the IPCC WG3 (which is somewhat beyond
> Andrew's purview) and the marine environment can offer clear and obvious
> advantages over terrestrial BECCS operations with the proper....and
> extant....STEM and with intergovernmental level cooperative governance; as
> provided for in the IMBECS Protocol.
>
> The value of Andrew's views, on the issue of marine based production (or even
> the entire subject of CDR such as AWL/biochar/BECCS/marine BECCS etc.), can
> be easily measured, weighed and found wanting of objective and fair minded
> considerations and or knowledge.
>
> [RWL5] I suggest we wish Michael luck. And in any case, increased ocean
> biomass should seem beneficial to us all, even if hydrogen is not a part of
> his final (solo!!) design. And I hope his work is seen as highly ethical
> (Michael is working open-source). If not ethical, this would be a good time
> to say so, as he is proposing open oceans (but not the usual OIF).
>
> [MLH7] Ron, thank you for pointing out the open-source nature of my work.
> Yes, I have gone out of my way to provide complete open access (and work
> history), even at this early developmental stage, to the totality of my
> writings and actions. Complete transparency should be profoundly important to
> all stakeholders including those who pontificate upon these important issues
> as well as those who attempt to actually develop ethical, equitable and, yes,
> transparent STEM/policy solutions.
>
> I hope I've made my views clear, if not, please let me know.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Michael,
>
>
>
> Michael Hayes
> 360-708-4976
> The IMBECS Protocol Draft
>
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Ronal W. Larson <rongretlar...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> Andrew and list, cc Michael
>
> I have been in the renewable energy (RE) business since 1973, and for all
> that time, the word "holy grail" for RE has been hydrogen production.
> Probably billions have been spent on that topic just in the US (especially if
> you include the amount spent within the fission and fusion communities). I
> have just googled for the word "holy grail" with energy - and didn't find as
> much RE as I expected. But when I add the qualifier "hydrogen" - there are
> huge numbers of cites. The point only being that hydrogen research and
> production has been and is popular; I'll bet there are very few on this list
> who would prefer CO2 coming out of their car's tail pipe to H2O. I have
> retired friends whose entire career has been in trying to economically
> produce RE-hydrogen and at least one from biomass (in retirement). Michael
> is not alone in this quest.
>
> See additional below.
>
>
> On Sep 20, 2014, at 5:27 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> If you scale this to have any impact on the climate, you'll run out of
> markets for by products.
>
> [RWL1: The most likely bi-product, at least as I understand Michael's
> scheme, is biochar. I have seen statements that biochar could be the world's
> first trillion dollar industry. I would not worry at this time of a market
> for biochar. This of course if the price is right - and that might have to
> include some payment for removing excess atmospheric carbon. I doubt anyone
> on this list thinks that CDR will ever be free. The big question for me is
> whether anyone can see a cheaper approach than biochar (of course taking
> account of out-year soil-related benefits, and including the benefits of
> reversing ocean acidification)? Anyone see a reason that ocean biomass
> should be more costly than land biomass? (No need for land-rent payments, no
> irrigation costs, maybe reduced fertilizer costs, reduced need by the
> ocean-plant for root-related "expense", higher per unit area solar conversion
> efficiency, etc)
>
>
> This hydrogen biological process doesn't scale to climatically significant
> levels with anything like present day technology.
>
> [RWL2: Michael would probably agree with you; I do. But he is not
> proposing "present day technology".
>
>
> We'd need to be living in a world with essentially free energy to make it
> viable.
>
> [RWL3: RE comes closer than anything else to "free" (especially comparing to
> fossil, fission and fusion). But Michael is not claiming free. There is a
> plentiful existing market for low priced charcoal. Given the pitiful state
> of the world's soils, the need for recalcitrant carbon far exceeds the
> hundreds of excess gigatonnes of C needing removal.
>
>
> It would be energetically the equivalent of chemically turning all our
> emissions back into coal and burying it. Absolutely unfeasible.
>
> [RWL4: Melvin Calvin having worked in this area suggests to me that your
> analogy is not the right one. I know (more perhaps than any other on this
> list because of recent off-list conversations with Michael) that his ideas
> are based on solid past experimental work with (dark) biomass and hydrogen
> (to produce sugars/cellulose). Anyone wanting to know of Calvin's (and
> others) work should let Michael or I know.
>
> So, I would modify your "Absolutely" in the last sentence to "Likely" or
> "Probably" . The concept of dark reactions involving hydrogen having been
> around for such a long time suggests to me that Michael must have a
> breakthrough idea to be successful. He thinks he has such a breakthrough. I
> am way out of my area of expertise and I am not going to work on this topic
> at all, except as it relates to CDR.
>
>
> I suggest we wish Michael luck. And in any case, increased ocean biomass
> should seem beneficial to us all, even if hydrogen is not a part of his final
> (solo!!) design. And I hope his work is seen as highly ethical (Michael is
> working open-source). If not ethical, this would be a good time to say so,
> as he is proposing open oceans (but not the usual OIF).
>
> Ron
>
>
> A
>
> On 19 Sep 2014 21:00, "Michael Hayes" <voglerl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Greg et al,
>
> [GR] "How about just using the H2 as fuel and sequestering the CO2?"
> [
>
> <snip - as not being necessary for this response>
>
> --
> 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/d/optout.
> <strategy.docx>
--
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/d/optout.
