And if you use olivine, it is not so much the reaction that is mentioned, but 
it is the hydrogen that forms by the reaction with the fayalite (iron end 
member of olivine)) that produces the hydrogen according to

6 Fe2SiO4  + 16 H2O  --> 4 Fe3O4 + 4 H2 + 6 H4SiO4

This reaction happens also in nature, and I have burnt some hydrogen bubbles 
that rose from a pool of water in (the biggest) olivine massif of the world in 
Oman, Olaf Schuiling

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] 
On Behalf Of Greg Rau
Sent: woensdag 20 april 2016 1:06
To: rongretlar...@comcast.net
Cc: Stephen Salter; Geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] March temperature smashes 100-year global record

Ron,
As for your point 4, the C negative H2 I'm talking about is powered by 
renewable electricity (or nuclear).
The basic idea is: H2O + base minerals + CO2 + renewable Vdc ---> H2 +  O2 + 
dissolved mineral bicarbonates (+ SiO2 if present).
e.g. silicates -
4CO2g + 4H2O + Mg2SiO4s + Vdc ----> 2H2g +  O2g + Mg2+ + 4HCO3- + SiO2s
e.g. carbonates:
CO2g + 2H2O + CaCO3s + Vdc ---->H2g +  1/2O2g + Ca2+ + 2HCO3-
See the links I listed earlier.
Furthermore, the energy cost of adding this CDR to electrolytic H2 production 
is theoretically near zero because bicarbonation of minerals is exothermic.  
CO2 consumed per H2 generated ranges from 22 to 44 (tonnes/tonne).
G

________________________________
From: Ronal W. Larson 
<rongretlar...@comcast.net<mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net>>
To: RAU greg <gh...@sbcglobal.net<mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net>>
Cc: Stephen Salter <s.sal...@ed.ac.uk<mailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>>; 
Geoengineering 
<geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 3:21 PM
Subject: Re: [geo] March temperature smashes 100-year global record

Greg,  Stephen, list

         1.  Re Stephen’s idea:  Sounds like an idea where the next step will 
have to be by the US air force (or someone’s military).  Starting with 200 
passenger designs wouldn’t seem to go very far.

         2.  I have nothing against H2 for lighter than air craft - but Helium 
should be considered as well.  I believe we are still venting a lot.

         3.  To get back onto the CDR aspects of this list (and costs lower 
than $100/tonne CO2) - there are companies talking co-products of biochar and 
jet fuel.  Not happening now (I gather) because oil is $40/barrel - not the 
anticipated $100/bbl.

         4.  Is anyone talking about low cost CDR starting with either solar, 
wind, hydro, geothermal or other RE electric?  Seems to me it has to be biochar.

Ron



On Apr 18, 2016, at 11:40 AM, Greg Rau 
<gh...@sbcglobal.net<mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net>> wrote:

Thanks, Stephen, that's a wonderful segway for our negative emissions H2:
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/25/10095.full
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b00875
Happy to provide all of the supergreen H2 you need (for a price).

As for H2 aircraft and the landing problem, how about zeppelins? I know that 
Hindenberg incident over here last century didn't help this technology (the Led 
Zepplin album cover (not to mention what as inside) influenced an entire 
generation), but why not put H2 to use both for lift and for propulsion? 
Zepplins would also seem to satisfy Prof. Northcott's desire for more civilized 
travel (his Action Item 11 below).

Then there is Plan C - rockets. Rockets can use H2 as fuel, and Mr. Musk has 
now demonstrated the soft vertical landing of such.  Was that landing on a 
rolling barge in the open ocean the most amazing engineering feat ever, or is 
it just me? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8Ij4FwO0nI

Regards,
Greg

________________________________
From: Stephen Salter <s.sal...@ed.ac.uk<mailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>>
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 2:23 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] March temperature smashes 100-year global record

Hi All
One more possible option would be to use hydrogen for aircraft fuel.  It has a 
great weight advantage but also a severe volume disadvantage.  This could be 
partly overcome if we remove the landing gear and have planes landing on ground 
vehicles.The landing gear on an Airbus 380 weighs the same as 200 passengers 
and their luggage.
A note with sketches is attached.
Stephen
Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, University of 
Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland 
s.sal...@ed.ac.uk<mailto:s.sal...@ed.ac.uk>, Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704, Cell 
07795 203 195, WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs<http://www.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs>, 
YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change
On 18/04/2016 06:38, Greg Rau wrote:
Dear Michael,
Yes, we need "moral alternatives to the present madness", but just in case all 
of those suggested aren't adopted in the next few decades it would seem immoral 
not to at least hope for additional options just in case 1-11 don't pan out in 
time.  As for crossing the the "large scale", "totalitarian" and "public debt"  
thresholds, something tells me that it's going to take some very large scale, 
draconian implementation to execute 1-11 in the dwindling time remaining, and 
many of these activities will require capital and investment from somewhere.
Meanwhile, natural CDR seems to be doing a good job consuming more than half of 
our CO2 emissions and actually reversing the air CO2 rise for a period each 
year*.  So given this positive example and the task we face, how immoral might 
it be to see if there are safe and cost effectively ways to increase or add to 
this natural CO2 uptake process just in case our journey on more virtuous paths 
to a stable planet proves to take longer than demanded by the recently lowered 
and oh so moral 1.5 Deg C warming limit?

*https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_two_years.pdf

Regards,
Greg


________________________________
From: NORTHCOTT Michael <m.northc...@ed.ac.uk><mailto:m.northc...@ed.ac.uk>
To: "johnnissen2...@gmail.com"<mailto:johnnissen2...@gmail.com> 
<johnnissen2...@gmail.com><mailto:johnnissen2...@gmail.com>
Cc: "m...@psu.edu"<mailto:m...@psu.edu> <m...@psu.edu><mailto:m...@psu.edu>; 
"geoengineering@googlegroups.com"<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> 
<geoengineering@googlegroups.com><mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; Greg 
Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net><mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net>; James Hansen 
<jimehan...@gmail.com><mailto:jimehan...@gmail.com>; P. Wadhams 
<p...@cam.ac.uk><mailto:p...@cam.ac.uk>; John Topping 
<jtoppin...@yahoo.com><mailto:jtoppin...@yahoo.com>; Robert Corell 
<robert.cor...@getf.org><mailto:robert.cor...@getf.org>; Peter R Carter 
<petercarte...@shaw.ca><mailto:petercarte...@shaw.ca>
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: [geo] March temperature smashes 100-year global record

Hi John

The course of action to slow the rate of warming (it is 0.1 degree per decade 
not 0.2) and ultimately to stop it requires all of the following. Young people 
and climate activists the world over are calling for these things and 
campaigning actively and at cost of their freedom sometimes to bring them about:

1. Ending tropical forest burning
2. Stopping building of new coal and oil fired power stations (Turkey and India 
and S Africa are planning 100s) and ending coal extraction by China, Indonesia, 
and even Australia, Germany US and UK who have no conceivable need to continue 
extracting the stuff given the wealth already at the disposal of their citizens 
and corporations
3. Closing existing coal and oil fired electric power plants
4. Reforesting uplands, reducing sheep grazing, and increasing uptake of co2 in 
agric land with biochar, compost etc
5. Ending expansion of air sea and road travel and moving all road and sea 
travel to electric vehicles and wind. Rationing air travel to gradually shift 
international and national travellers to other means.
6. Moving all electricity production to renewable power and battery / reservoir 
storage of back up power.
7. Reengineering older buildings with insulation.
8. Requiring all new builds to generate own power and be zero carbon
9. Reducing shipping and flying of food by favouring local over global food 
production.
10. Ending large scale animal husbandry and moving mainstream human protein 
requirements to beans, vegetables etc.
11. Favour pedestrians, cyclists and electric bikes, segways, electric 
wheelchairs etc in all city planning and movement infrastructure

Globally these measures would generate at least a billion of jobs, reduce 
deaths from pollution, and reduce health costs of cancers, heart disease, 
obesity and air pollution, and reduce concentrations of wealth by putting 
capacity to generate power, grow food and move around back in the hands of 
householders and local communities. None of them require large scale 
totalitarian and public debt-based technologies of the kind represented by CDR.

We need moral alternatives to the present madness. We need to argue for them in 
every possible forum and embrace them ourselves. Arming the future against the 
sun is a counsel of despair.

Regards

Michael

Professor of Ethics
University of Edinburgh


On 17 Apr 2016, at 17:10, John Nissen 
<johnnissen2...@gmail.com<mailto:johnnissen2...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dear Professor Mann,

Most of us would like to keep global warming below 1.5C this century.  But we 
are way off course.

Nobody likes to admit in public that we are already in dangerous territory.  
But we are!

The rate of global warming (near-surface temperature rise) could now exceed 0.2 
C per decade; CO2 is above 400 ppm (an excess of 120 ppm above pre-industrial 
280 ppm) of which most will remain this century due to CO2's long lifetime in 
the atmosphere; and we have already had over 1 C anthropogenic global warming 
(AGW).  This means that, even with the most drastic cut in CO2 emissions, we 
cannot avoid an extremely dangerous 3C this century without aggressive CO2 
removal (CDR).  Indeed, if we want to keep AGW below 1.5 C this century and 
halt ocean acidification, then we need to get global warming rate down below 
0.05 C per decade, i.e. less than a quarter the current rate.

Thus climate forcing has to be reduced by 75% within a decade or two, to have a 
chance to keep below 1.5 C this century.

Thus we have to reduce the CO2 level to around 210 ppm (30 ppm above 
pre-industrial 280 ppm), and reduce methane from 1.8 ppm to around 1.0 ppm in 
order to reduce their combined forcing by 75%.  This assumes we maintain 
aerosol cooling, especially the SO2 cooling from coal-fired power stations.

This is exacerbated by climate forcing from the Arctic, at around 0.5 W/m2 and 
rising exponentially as albedo loss accelerates.

Therefore, in addition to urgent CO2 emissions reduction, we need (i) 
aggressive CDR so that CO2 is soon being removed from the atmosphere faster 
than than it is being emitted, (ii) suppression of methane emissions, 
especially fugitive methane (iii) rapid cooling of the Arctic to restore 
albedo, and (iv) maintenance of SO2 aerosol cooling, if global warming is to be 
kept below 1.5 C this century.

Do you agree or can you suggest an alternative course of action to avert 
extreme danger?

Kind regards,

John Nissen
Chair, Arctic Methane Emergency Group (AMEG)


On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 3:22 AM, Greg Rau 
<gh...@sbcglobal.net<mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net>> wrote:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/15/march-temperature-smashes-100-year-global-record
"The UK Met Office expects 2016 to set a new 
record<http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/17/2016-set-to-be-hottest-year-on-record-globally>,
 meaning the global temperature record is set to have been broken for three 
years in a row.
Prof Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Penn State University in the US, 
responded to the March data by saying: “Wow. I continue to be shocked by what 
we are seeing.” He said the world had now been hovering close to the threshold 
of “dangerous” warming for two months, something not seen before.
“The [new data] is a reminder of how perilously close we now are to permanently 
crossing into dangerous territory,” Mann said. “It underscores the urgency of 
reducing global carbon emissions.”
GR - and the need to seriously consider additional ways of managing CO2 and 
climate.
--
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 https://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<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

--
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 https://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<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

--
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 https://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<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at https://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<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at https://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<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to