RE: [geo]_Re:_A_graphic_to_help_map_the_Carbo n_Dioxide_Removal_(“CDR”)_field_|_Deich

Mon, 02 Feb 2015 17:49:41 -0800

Olaf,

Many wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) add ferric chloride to their digesters, or into the primary clarifiers and thence into the digesters to control H2S.

Do you know any WWTPs adding olivine to digesters?  I can think of some potential issues: it might settle faster than the mixing system can handle; it might change digester pH adversely; struvite or vivianite might start plating digester components and pipes.  But maybe these are offset by the richer (more CH4) digester gas, maybe we can harvest struvite more easily?

Mark E. Capron, PE
Ventura, California
www.PODenergy.org


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [geo]_Re:_A_graphic_to_help_map_the_Carbo
n_Dioxide_Removal_(“CDR”)_field_|_Deich
From: "Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf)" <r.d.schuil...@uu.nl>
Date: Mon, February 02, 2015 6:00 am
To: "'oliver.tick...@kyoto2.org'" <oliver.tick...@kyoto2.org>,
"'markcap...@podenergy.org'" <markcap...@podenergy.org>,
"voglerl...@gmail.com" <voglerl...@gmail.com>,
"geoengineering@googlegroups.com" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>

The methane reaction does NOT take place in environments with free oxygen. It only takes place in anoxic environments, like deep weathering, where the oxygen is already used up, in ocean bottoms that are composed of peridotites; the sea water penetrates in deep cracks, and reacts with the (reducing) rock, by which methane is formed, and the methane on Mars has probably a similar origin. It has advantages too, like the production of a richer biogas , while at the same time the CO2 in the biogas is not emitted to the atmosphere. Sensational examples are found in SW Turkey (the Yanartasi = the eternally burning rock), and on Luzon/Philippines, where it is called the Fuegos Eternos (the eternal fires). I attach a romantic description of the Turkish example, which I will revisit in May when I will lead a fieldtrip there, Olaf
 
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Oliver Tickell
Sent: maandag 2 februari 2015 14:38
To: Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf); 'markcap...@podenergy.org'; voglerl...@gmail.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [geo]_Re:_A_graphic_to_help_map_the_Carbon_Dioxide_Removal_(“CDR”)_field_|_Deich
 
Interesting!

Clearly this reaction is good in a biodigester - but does it also take pleace in ordinary open air/water weathering? If so then it reduces the benefit to be gained from weathering olivine, as CH4 is a powerful GHG.

Best, Oliver.

On 31/01/2015 12:39, Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf) wrote:
And if you add fine-grained olivine to the biodigester you add three advantages:
1.      You shift part of the CO2 in the biogas to the liquid as bicarbonate. So the biogas becomes richer
2.      The digester doesn’t smell anymore, because the iron in the olivine combines with the H2S as iron sulphide
3.      The absolute amount of produced methane also increases thanks to the reaction
6 Fe2SiO4 +  CO2 + 14 H2O à 4 Fe3O4 + CH4 + 6 H4SiO4 . This reaction is catalyzed by the fine-grained magnetite crystals that form, and has been tested at several dutch universities. The reaction is well-known from places where the ocean bottom is composed of olivine rocks, and where seawater seeps into fractures, Olaf Schuiling
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of markcap...@podenergy.org
Sent: zaterdag 31 januari 2015 2:02
To: voglerl...@gmail.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [geo]_Re:_A_graphic_to_help_map_the_Carbon_Dioxide_Removal_(“CDR”)_field_|_Deich
 
Noah,
 
Nice clear graphic.  Love it.
 
Please add "C from N separation" within your Transformation approach.
 
C (carbon) from N (plant nutrients, a big one being nitrogen as ammonia or nitrate) separation can be a fermentation or a chemical process.  The most common fermentation is anaerobic digestion (AD).  An up and coming chemical process is hydrothermal liquefaction (HL).  Both processes economically produce energy in the form of CH4 and longer chain hydrocarbons.  Both have a by-product of CO2 at about 40% of the biogas produced.  (The HL biogas production is at 200 atm and 350C, which allows for very inexpensive production of pure CH4 separate from the pure CO2.)
 
You should show both separation processes because they each scale much larger than any of the three (Biomass burial, Pyrolysis, or BECCS) you show currently.  They scale larger because the plant nutrients are not sequestered with the carbon and they are both economically viable on the energy alone with wet biomass such as seaweed forests: as low as 1% solids for AD and as low as 10% solids for HL.
 
Include an arrow over to "Pure compressed CO2" from each separation process.
 
Your chart will be much more complete and accurate. 
 
Thank you
 
Mark E. Capron, PE
Ventura, California
www.PODenergy.org
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject:
[geo]_Re:_A_graphic_to_help_map_the_Carbon_Dioxide_Removal_(“CDR”)_field_|_Deich
From: Michael Hayes <voglerl...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, January 30, 2015 10:49 am
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Noah,
 
The statement that "...biochar can be burned to create electricity instead of applied to soils as a carbon sink." is questionable as biochar 'fuel' is charcoal. Only that which is buried is 'biochar'.
Yet, I believe Ron Larson (IBI) can best express this point.
 
Also, your mission objective of "map the most prominent aspects of CDR" would seem to open up the effort to listing the many important 'prominent aspect' of the biotic approach such as the production of food, feed, fuel, fertilizer, polymers and fresh water (etc.). In short, the biotic can pay for itself while the non-biotic can not.
 
This is a profoundly important aspect which many authors in this field ignore. We must ask ourselves if we wish climate change mitigation to be at the whims of the political purse sting or financially independent and based solely on the science...not the thin ice of political popularity.
 
Best,
 
Michael  

On Thursday, January 29, 2015 at 10:53:49 AM UTC-8, andrewjlockley wrote:
Everything and the Carbon Sink
Noah Deich's blog on all things Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR)
A graphic to help map the Carbon Dioxide Removal (“CDR”) field
JANUARY 22, 2015
For the carbon dioxide removal (“CDR”) field, breadth is simultaneously a blessing and a curse. On the bright side, the numerous approaches to CDR suggest the potential for deploying a diverse portfolio of CDR projects that reduces both the risks and costs of preventing climate change. But the down side of breadth is complexity, which makes the CDR field difficult to explain and envision, and can lead to confusion about how to catalyze development of CDR approaches as a result.
In the graphic below, I’ve attempted to categorize and map the most prominent aspects of CDR in as comprehensive and clear a manner as possible:It is critical to note that not all of the elements of this graphic are exclusive to CDR. For example, direct air capture (“DAC”) machines can be used to create hydrocarbon fuels (instead of for carbon sequestration purposes). In a similar manner, biochar can be burned to create electricity instead of applied to soils as a carbon sink. Even more broadly, compressed CO2 can come from many places, including from fossil-fueled power plants with carbon capture and sequestration (“CCS”) systems. Unpacking how each of the elements for various CDR processes fit into wider industrial systems is critical for designing effective strategies for developing various CDR approaches — hopefully this visualization of the field can help with that process
--
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.
--
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.
--
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.
 
--
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.

--
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.

Reply via email to