NOT ocean fertilization for 9% for 36 gton/yr RE: [geo] Re: ocean fertilization

[markcapron]

Oliver,Thanks for asking about high-nutrient low-chlorophyll (HNLC) water.  Doesn't matter if the water is currently LNLC, HNLC, HNHC, or LNHC, the life in it is endangered by dropping pH and warming.  Good idea to grow and harvest a lot of macroalgae to raise pH.  Even better if your macroalgae forests have warming adaption features.OceanForesters recommends a food and energy play using forests of seaweed.  Every step, excepting the actual storage of the CO2, is paid for by people buying food and energy.OceanForesters is not and does not recommend "ocean fertilization".  Sinking algae to store carbon is unsustainable.  At the scale we need to bring atmospheric CO2 concentrations back below 300 ppm, we cannot afford to lose much N, P, and micronutrients in the cycle.The OceanForesters cycle is grow-harvest-separate the energy from the nutrients and the CO2-recycle all the nutrients-grow-harvest-...  This is cradle-grave-cradle-... energy production, powered by the sun, spinning off nearly pure CO2 for storage.  We have an opportunity to store mercury with the CO2 and convert plastics to energy.The scale of energy production is such that spinning off a little of the energy production as food easily feeds 10 billion people.  Nutrients to balance the food spin-off are returned via water resource recovery facilities (aka wastewater treatment plants).Mark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: Re: 9% for 36 gton/yr RE: [geo] Re: ocean fertilization
From: Oliver Wingenter 
Date: Fri, November 17, 2017 3:42 pm
To: markcap...@podenergy.org
Cc: chris.vivi...@btinternet.com,  geoengineering


Mark, Why would you consider fertilizing water that is not HNLC?OliverOn Nov 17, 2017 4:08 PM,  wrote:Chris,Please pass to David.See 2012 paper in Process Safety and Environmental Protection "Negative carbon via Ocean Afforestation".The 2012 paper is a little outdated with only anaerobic digestion as the energy process.  Now estimating 5% of world's ocean surface to completely replace fossil fuels (600 quadrillion BTU/yr).  The more likely hybrid energy process of hydrothermal liquefaction and anaerobic digestion would mean somewhat less gigatons of CO2 stored each year.  The paper discusses recycling plant nutrients from the energy process back to the seaweed.U.S. Department of Energy's Advanced Research Project Agency - Energy is funding 18 seaweed-energy teams in MARINER.  Attached describes the two University of Southern Mississippi/OceanForesters teams and has links to the full list of teams.ARPA-E is not discussing CO2 recovery and storage.  Our favorite approach that can easily keep up with that rate of CO2 storage is explained in OCEANS'13 MTS/IEEE Technical Program "Secure Seafloor Container CO2 Storage." Mark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org    Original Message  Subject: [geo] Re: ocean fertilization From: Chris Vivian  Date: Wed, November 15, 2017 2:58 am To: geoengineering   David,I seem to remember from quite some time ago that a figure of 25% of the global ocean would be required but I cannot remember the source of that figure.Chris.On Tuesday, November 14, 2017 at 6:32:08 PM UTC, David Sevier wrote:Does anyone have any ideas of the area of ocean that would be required to absorb 1 gigaton of CO2 if properly fertilized? It would be interesting to understand the potential sized area required for this and the possible volume of nutrients required. Usual caveats about that this has not been tried and studied properly yet apply. I am trying to get an idea of scale of this. It would also be useful to understand the potential fishing stock increase for the area in question. Increased fishing could give an economic underpinning to ocean fertilization.  David SevierCarbon Cycle Limited248 Sutton Common RoadSutton, Surrey SM3 9PWEnglandTel 44 (0)208 288 0128Fax 44 (0)208-288 0129www.carbon-cycle.co.uk  This email is private and confidential   --  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+unsubscribe@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.--  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+unsubscribe@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.   --  You 

RE: [geo] Bullshit in geoengineering discourse

[markcapron]

Andrew,BECCS can be deployed at scale with the Allam Cycle: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/goodbye-smokestacks-startup-invents-zero-emission-fossil-fuel-power.  I've been watching this technology move from lab to pilot scale (25MW output) for a couple years.We know we can make enough biogas from anaerobic digestion of seaweed to produce 100% of global energy (~600 quads by 2030).  See authors' version of peer-reviewed publications at the bottom of http://oceanforesters.org/Ocean_Forests.html.The first few Allam Cycle power plants will use natural gas (or biogas) in order to ensure there are no particulates in the supercritical fluid.  As the technology is refined, it could burn anything.Mark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org 


 Original Message 
Subject: RE: [geo] Bullshit in geoengineering discourse
From: "Douglas MacMartin" 
Date: Sun, August 06, 2017 5:38 am
To: , "'Andrew Lockley'"

Cc: "'geoengineering'" 

I think it would be more accurate to say that, based on what we know today, we don’t know what the costs of DAC would be if deployed at scale.  I understand that people have made estimates, but it is very hard to reliably forecast costs from things done at 3 or more (?) orders of magnitude smaller scale than would be necessary (it would not be hard to find historical examples of wildly inaccurate cost estimates of either sign of error, indeed I suspect it would be hard to find any comparable examples where cost estimates turned out to have been pretty good).   In that respect I think you’re both wrong (and, no offense, but committing a similar fallacy of over-confidence in extrapolation), and I think it is premature, for example, to base current mitigation decisions on the assumption that DAC will turn out to be cheap.  I think “we” ought to invest vastly more $$ in learning how to scale up technology. Note Jesse, Andy and Pete’s tropes paper too: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000416/full doug From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Peter EisenbergerSent: Sunday, August 06, 2017 6:04 AMTo: Andrew Lockley Cc: geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] Bullshit in geoengineering discourse I am not sure  if this approach does not risk making the same mistake that critics of geopengineering  do in using real examples of absurd arguments and then generalize to discredit others that are not worthy. I agree with some of your list but I personally know that it cam easily be proven scientiifically that DAC can be deployed at the scale needed to achieve the objectives of CDR and do so withiout any unintended risks that plaqued attempts like SRM. In fact DAC made it to your list because of the same type of n on scietific attacks that currrently plaque approaches like SRM. Non scientific statements like DAC will be too costy and moral hazard arguments have been used to create accepted myths about DAC to the extent it mde it on to your list(with equivocation)  .  I have made the point before that scientific community supporting the risk of climate change started the non scientific approach in response to attacks by climate deniers by over stating what models could predict. Because the climate system is a complex system by definition the "butterfly" risk exists. The risk that our rapid rate of Co2 change will initiate a mode that will cause great destruction definitely exists but it is essentially scientifically impossible to predict because from the currrent state a large number of future  paths exist which cannot at this time distinquish between and state with any meanigful accuracy whci state will actually emerge . This is just basic physics . So I claim scientifcally it is our ignorance of what risk we are actually taking by changing the CO2 concentration that is scientifically sound .  The claims that the modelling community can make assessments of the future state with scientically meaningful accuracy that reduces the existing risk of our lack of knowledge of the future is not scientifically sound. From many discussions i have had many agree with this but will not speak for fear of giving comfort to climate deniers. In turn of course I know seveal first class physicists that are offended by the climate predicitions made for the reason I stated and thus the non defensible predictions. This is  partly responsible for creating  the more scientific minded deniers. I employ everyone to refrain from exaggerated and non scientifically defensible statements. If science loses its objectivity we are truly in trouble.    I am a strong supporter of research on SRM and other geoengineering approaches though I am skeptical that one will ever be able to remove the risks their deployment might create for reasons related to the above arguments. In fact 

RE: Re[2]:_[geo]_Master’s_thesis_comparing_CDR_strateg ies

[markcapron]

Franz,Cool.  Iron salts may be a good way to distribute micro-nutrients to ocean forests.U.S. Department of Energy Advanced Research Project Agency-Energy's MARINER funding opportunity promised review comments today (July 28).  Ocean Foresters and Climate Foundation organized nine encouraged full-proposals.  The deadline for response to reviewer comments is August 2.  (MARINER's objective is proof-of-concepts to grow and harvest seaweed to provide 10% of U.S. energy.  Doing so would incidentally generate a lot of concentrated renewable-CO2 for storage.  Some CO2 is generated during seaweed-to-energy conversion. Allam Cycle electricity generation has pure liquid CO2 exhaust.)Mark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: Re[2]:_[geo]_Master’s_thesis_comparing_CDR_strateg ies
From: "Franz Dietrich Oeste" 
Date: Thu, July 27, 2017 2:27 am
To: bart...@umich.edu, durb...@gmail.com, geoengineering


   Dear Mark, We support your plan to release a report about CO2 removal options because the sustained greenhouse gas removal is the only option of a successful fight against the climate warming problem. Nonetheless, we want to direct your attention to the ISA method. This method mimics the natural process of climate cooling by removal of several greenhouse gases (methane, CO2, and tropospheric ozone) from the atmosphere and by increase of the cloud albedo. To our opinion it is the most efficient climate cooling method according to its simplicity and its outstanding economy. You will find its full description at https://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/1/2017/esd-8-1-2017.pdf  All best,Franz D. Oeste gM-IngenieurbüroDipl.-Ing. Franz D. OesteTannenweg 2D-35274 KirchhainGermanyTel +49 (0) 6422-85168Mobil +49 (0) 171-9526068oe...@gm-ingenieurbuero.comwww.gm-ingenieubuero.com -- Originalnachricht -- Von: "Mark Barteau"  An: durb...@gmail.com; "geoengineering"  Gesendet: 27.07.2017 01:42:29 Betreff: Re: [geo] Master’s thesis comparing CDR strategies  It has been. It is student work of uneven quality.  We are actively editing it and plan to release as a report from the University of Michigan Energy Institute within the next two months. I will post it when we do. Mark Barteau Director, University of Michigan Energy Institute  On 7/26/2017 6:47 PM, Eric Durbrow wrote:   Forgive me if this has already been posted. It is a U Mich Master’s thesis (2017) comparing a dozen or so CDR strategies by gigatons of carbon captured.    https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/136610/315_CarbonDioxideRemovalOptions.pdf?sequence=1=y   Comparison table starts page 17 --  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. --  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.   --  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. 





-- 
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.

RE: [geo] Allam cycle gas power plant producing pure CO2 & electricity at cost of regular gas power plants

[markcapron]

Matthias,Supercritical CO2 working fluid looks real.  Lots of research for use in connection with solar thermal and nuclear heat.  The Texas project mentioned in Forbes is the nearest commercial-scale test appearing in the news for the past couple years.  Note that combustion of methane produces a blended supercritical fluid of water and CO2.  Blended supercritical fluids have mole-proportional blended critical temperatures and pressures.  Because of the much higher density of supercritical fluids (near 200 kg/m3) the turbine can be much smaller than a steam turbine.Mark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: [geo] Allam cycle gas power plant producing pure CO2 &
electricity at cost of regular gas power plants
From: Matthias Honegger 
Date: Tue, February 21, 2017 8:15 am
To: geoengineering 

Dear colleaguesI wonder what people here think of the Allam cycle gas power plant (see the Forbes article below). Would it make engineering and economic sense to use it on the basis of biogas and to store the CO2 so that it constitutes a negative emissions technology – how could it fare compared to BECCS based on conventional thermal power plant design?Best, MatthiasRevolutionary Power Plant Captures All Its Carbon Emissions, At No Extra CostGreen Gas: the Allam Cycle technology promises a future of emissions-free fossil fuels. Christopher Helman – Tthis story appears in the February Special 2017 issue of ForbesGROWING UP IN ENGLAND after World War II, "all the youngsters like me were obsessed with aircraft," says Rodney Allam. "I had a picture on my wall of Chuck Yeager when he broke the sound barrier in the Bell X-1, the earliest turbine-driven aircraft." Those high-powered machines were inspirational. Allam became a chemical engineer and went to work at the U.K. division of Air Products & Chemicals, based in Allentown, Pennsylvania. There in the 1970s, he became obsessed with an idea: how to capture the carbon-dioxide emissions from the U.K.'s giant coal-burning power plants? He already knew where to put the CO2. BP and Royal Dutch Shell would jump at the chance to inject it into their vast oilfields in the North Sea. Injecting the gas (which acts as a solvent to free up stubborn crude oil) has long been a common practice in West Texas fields, where oil companies tap naturally occurring reservoirs of CO2. But there were none of those in England.Allam explored various bolt-on methods to grab the CO2 from a giant 2,400-megawatt coal plant in Scotland. But none came close to viability. For a simple reason: They were too expensive. He became obsessed with making carbon capture affordable: first for the technical challenge and then out of an impetus to slow CO2 induced global warming. "I tried like hell," he says, "but I gave it up in the early 1990s--couldn't make it work."But now he has. In December, Allam, 76, flew from his home in the U.K. to meet Forbes at a construction site in Texas near the Houston Ship Channel, the heart of the nation's largest petrochemical complex. When completed early this year, at a cost of about $150 million, these 5 acres of steel and concrete, pipes, tanks and high-voltage lines will become the proving ground for a technology called the Allam Cycle. It's a novel electric-generation system that burns natural gas and captures all the produced carbon dioxide. The best part is that it makes electricity at the same low cost as other modern gas-fired turbines--about 6 cents per kilowatt-hour.Environmentalists are hopeful. "It's not just a bridge, it's a destination," says John Thompson, who directs the carbon-capture program at the Clean Air Task Force. Renewable energy sources haven't scaled fast enough to replace fossil fuels, and zero-carbon nuclear is too expensive. "We're going to have to use fossil fuels in the future whether we like it or not," Allam says. "The challenge will be in using fossil fuels to produce electricity without emitting CO2 into the atmosphere."Allam left Air Products in 2005 after 44 years. In 2009, he got a call from 8 Rivers, a venture capital incubator in Durham, North Carolina. Bill Brown, 8 Rivers' cofounder, saw piles of federal Recovery Act money available for research on carbon capture and sequestration. It wasn't hard to rev Allam up again. Soon he was sending handwritten brain dumps to the cadre of young engineers at 8 Rivers. Within six months, Allam completed the design. 8 Rivers worked with engineering powerhouses Fluor and Babcock & Wilcox to refine and verify the tech. Brown, formerly of Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, presented it to whoever would listen. "Nobody believed us," Brown says. "They thought I was selling snake oil." They had reason to doubt. Bolt-on systems for carbon capture exist, but they reduce efficiency. And they're expensive; Southern Co. is $4 billion overbudget so far on its "clean coal" plant in Mississippi. 

Beyond biochar RE: [geo] Bioengineering CDR

[markcapron]

Ron,You might get more traction, particularly during droughts, selling biochar as water capture and storage.  The only difficulty would be that we might have more biocapture and storage of both water and carbon with less expense by managing our plants as was done by large herbivores before humans fenced the plains.Percolation Landscaping and FarmingA stormwater and drought solution Why improve percolation? Growing and maintaining plants more
naturally can greatly increase the mass of live and dead roots in the
soil.  More live and dead root mass means
the soil can absorb (percolate) rain faster and hold (capture, store) rain.  This fact means people can modify how they
maintain the soil of their farms, orchards, golf courses, road medians,
bioswales, residential yards, parks, and schools to capture stormwater.  They can grow water storage with volumes that
address drought and the likelihood that we will experience less rain, but at
higher intensity. Consider the percolation results
claimed for
carbon farming practices.  During minute 8:40 – 9:40 of the web video,
the farmer claims percolation improved from 1” of rain per hour to 8” of rain
per hour.  Table 1 shows people can
capture thousands of times more rain with percolation than with rain
barrels.  We can have useful seasonal
rain capture with improved percolation, enough to make a difference in how we
manage our groundwater aquifers. Table 1 –
Comparison of rain capture with barrels and improved soil percolation
 
  
  Rain
  capture volume with improved percolation
  
  
  Area
  
  
  Rain
  
  
  
  
   

Rain
volume

   
  
  
  
  Captured
  volume
  
 
 
  
  sqft
  
  
  inches
  
  
  gallons
  
  
  gallons
  
 
 
  
  Residential roof with two rain barrels
  
  
  2,000
  
  
  8
  
  
  10,000
  
  
  100
  
 
 
  
  Yard which can perc 1" of rain
  
  
  1,000
  
  
  8
  
  
  5,000
  
  
  600
  
 
 
  
  Yard which can perc 4" of rain
  
  
  1,000
  
  
  8
  
  
  5,000
  
  
  5,000
  
 
 
  
  Golf Course, park, school which can perc 1"
  of rain
  
  
  100,000
  
  
  8
  
  
  500,000
  
  
  63,000
  
 
 
  
  Golf Course, park, school which can perc 4"
  of rain
  
  
  100,000
  
  
  8
  
  
  500,000
  
  
  500,000
  
 
 
  
  Orchard or farm which can perc 1" of rain
  
  
  10,000,000
  
  
  8
  
  
  50,000,000
  
  
  6,300,000
  
 
 
  
  Orchard or farm which can perc 4" of rain
  
  
  10,000,000
  
  
  8
  
  
  50,000,000
  
  
  50,000,000
  
 
 Mark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: Re: [geo] Bioengineering CDR
From: Ronal W. Larson 
Date: Sun, November 20, 2016 6:10 pm
To: RAU greg , Geoengineering


Greg:  cc list 1.   Yesterday, you started a new thread, related to an article in Science, that appeared a few days ago.  You gave this enigmatic comment at the end (the original is below):   “GR - More arrows, lifer preservers and/or hazards?”     I write in hope of more dialog on two threads,  two articles,  and the comment you have twice used. It took me awhile to realize that you were referring to the still ongoing “Geo” thread you also initiated (on the 11th) called  “ [geo] Negative Emissions: Arrows in the Quiver, Life Preserver, and/or Moral Hazard?" This earlier thread related to a Science letter, http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6313/714.1in which you were a co-signer, calling for continued emphasis on CDR.  The “arrows” and “life preservers” were in the Lackner/your text The response by Anderson and Peters (at http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6313/714.2) continued to defend their original opinion.  A key sentence is:  “We stand by our claim that postulating large-scale negative emissions in the future leads to much less mitigation today.”  This seems equivalent to saying that NETs are a “moral hazard”.   This may be true for some NET/CDR approaches, but I don’t see it being true for biochar  (and so hope we can have a discussion/argument on this topic). 2.  Subsequently the thread has veered from this above exchange - but I think we still need further discussion on the Moral Hazard aspects of CDR/NET.  Being a proponent of NETS,  I am with your group, but now trying to get attention as well on your calling attention today to a totally different Science article, "A synthetic pathway for the fixation of carbon dioxide in vitro”   (authors Schwander….Erb)  - which is found at http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6314/900.full .  There is a longer and important supplemental at:   http://science.sciencemag.org/content/sci/suppl/2016/11/16/354.6314.900.DC1/Schwander.SM.pdf As a biochar supporter, I have tried to understand photosynthesis.  I will not try further on this one;  the article is way over my head.   But this is not to disparage the article.  It looks like wonderful fundamental science - maybe even of Nobel Prize 

[geo] Fuel cell carbon capture from "normal" power plants

[markcapron]

http://www.powermag.com/fuel-cells-could-be-a-game-changer-for-carbon-capture/?hq_e=el_m=3246679_l=3_v=a1510abee6Excerpt:Normally in FCE’s carbonate fuel cells, methane is reformed in the cell anode to create CO2and H2, which is then used to generate electricity by combining with oxygen from ambient air to create an electric current and exhaust streams of water vapor and CO2. The carbon-capture fuel cell will still be powered by methane, but by using flue gas instead of ambient air, the chemical reactions in the cell can concentrate up to 90% of the incoming CO2, which flows with the CO2 generated in the reforming process into the normal exhaust stream, where it can easily be separated from the water vapor.A critical difference—and bonus—in this process is that rather than being a parasitic drain on the plant, it actually generates additional power (Figure 1). According to FCE, the power output is larger than the parasitic drain from conventional carbon-capture technologies.Mark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: [geo] Upcoming Events | Berkeley Climate Action Coalition
Convening: Carbon Farming | Ecology Center
From: Andrew Lockley 
Date: Thu, May 19, 2016 3:54 pm
To: geoengineering 

http://ecologycenter.org/events/berkeley-climate-action-coalition-convening-carbon-farming/ ECOLOGY CENTER EVENT BERKELEY CLIMATE ACTION COALITION CONVENING: CARBON FARMINGWednesday | June 15, 2016 | 6:00 pm — 8:00 pm Ed Roberts Campus | 3075 Adeline Street, Berkeley, CA 94703 Even if we stopped extracting and burning fossil fuels today, the wheels of catastrophic climate change have been set in motion. While reducing emissions is essential, it’s half the battle – we must also sequester carbon out of the atmosphere. The world’s soils hold roughly three times more carbon than the amount stored in the atmosphere. Carbon farming uses intensive composting and innovative land management strategies to draw down even more carbon into our soil. The Bay Area is a hub for this exciting, potentially planet-changing research and practice. Join our panel of local experts – Jeanne Merrill, Policy Director at CalCAN; UC Berkeley Professor Miguel Altieri; and farmers Elizabeth & Paul Kaiser from Singing Frogs Farm – to explore how improving the health of the planet’s soils holds tremendous potential to slow climate change. We’ll also hear from Nathan Dahl on the BCAC Land Use Working Group’s campaign to include community gardens as a “by-right” land use in Berkeley’s zoning code, and from Councilmember Jesse Arreguin on the Urban Agriculture Package, which would incentivize food growing in vacant lots. Ed Roberts Campus, 3075 Adeline St, Berkeley. Accessible by AC Transit buses (#12 and #49) and BART (Ashby). Wheelchair accessible. Email rebe...@ecologycenter.org by Thursday, June 9 to reserve a meal. Co-sponsored by Berkeley Food Institute. Invite friends, colleagues, and neighbors and keep growing our local climate movement! About the Berkeley Climate Action Coalition The BCAC is a network of local organizations and community members joining together to help implement the City of Berkeley’s ambitious, forty-year Climate Action Plan. We include residents, nonprofits, the City of Berkeley, neighborhood groups, faith-based organizations, schools, businesses, UC Berkeley, and anyone else interested in helping to achieve the critical goal of 80% emissions reductions. Visit the Coalition website to learn more: www.berkeleyclimatecoalition.org Cost: Free Event Email: rebe...@ecologycenter.org  This event is wheelchair accessible  --  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. 





-- 
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.

RE: [geo] Gearing up for a new supercritical CO2 power cycle system

[markcapron]

Greg,A better way to state this development - The cost of electricity with capture of liquid or supercritical CO2 under pressure using supercritical oxidation may be less than the cost of electricity from any other big power plant technology exhausting the CO2 into the air (but capturing Hg, SOx, NOx, particulates, etc.)The reason you have not seen this before, and the biggest economics risk issue, is that there has been too much corrosion at the higher temperatures (say 600-700C) needed for this kind of efficiency (or the materials which did not corrode were too expensive).For combusting garbage, seaweed, feces, woodchips, and plastic, I might prefer to operate near 400C.  That is because above about 430C, the N in proteins will convert to N2.  Near 400C, we get easily recovered and concentrated ammonium and ammonia.  I suspect the ammonia will be more valuable to grow more seaweed than is the extra electricity.Mark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: Re: [geo] Gearing up for a new supercritical CO2 power cycle
system
From: Greg Rau 
Date: Wed, April 13, 2016 9:26 am
To: markcap...@podenergy.org
Cc: geoengineering 

So the implied energy penalty is 100% of the gross electric power output(?). How is this better than the 30% energy penalty typical of CCS?  Maybe fuel efficiency of the former narrows the gap? Also, gross - net electric power is the true measure of the energy penalty of providing O2?Sent from the Rau's iPadOn Apr 13, 2016, at 6:38 AM,   wrote:If the news release is consistent with typical industry reporting for future power plants, the pure O2 is included in the efficiency numbers as part of the process.  That is hinted in the paragraph "Since 2012, Toshiba ... to build a 25MW gross electric (50MWt) demonstration in Texas."  This is not surprising because the energy to compress the O2 likely dominates over the energy to separate.At least three options: cyrogenic distillation, membrane separation, pressure swing adsorption.  Last I checked cyrogenic had an economic edge at the volumes needed for power generation, but that is changing constantly.  There are some nifty heat/pressure exchanging energy efficiencies possible with any of the three.Mark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org    Original Message  Subject: Re: [geo] Gearing up for a new supercritical CO2 power cycle system From: Greg Rau  Date: Mon, April 11, 2016 2:13 pm To: "andrew.lock...@gmail.com" ,  geoengineering   "This CO2 turbine can be used with oxyfuel combustion giving CCS with no secondary plant or energy penalty. "GR - But what is the energy penalty of supplying high conc O2?    From: Andrew Lockley  To: geoengineering   Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 12:56 AM Subject: [geo] Gearing up for a new supercritical CO2 power cycle system   Poster's note : relevant to BECCS. This CO2 turbine can be used with oxyfuel combustion giving CCS with no secondary plant or energy penalty. Any source of syngas (eg photocatalytic) can then be turned into a CO2 stream in an efficient thermal power plant. Theoretically, it can also be used for combined heat and power.  http://www.gasturbineworld.com/gearing-up.html Gearing up for a new supercritical CO2 power cycle system Toshiba has almost completed detailed design in preparation for a turbine that will use carbon dioxide as the working fluid. 25MWe Demo Plant. Design features a single can-type combustor and double-shell turbine structure, scaled-down model of a 250-300MWe turbine design for a commercial plant. The case for building new coal fired plants or back-fitting existing coal plants with carbon capture technology is economically unattractive. The case for equipping gas-fired plants with carbon capture and storage (CCS) is even more difficult to justify.   High capital cost, combined with the penalty in efficiency that the capture process places on the power plant, has so far proved to be a major stumbling block in the commercial deployment of power plants with CCS.   A solution that has been under serious development for the last 5 or 6 years, however, has now reached the stage where the key component – a new type of turbine and combustor – is close to the start of manufacturing.   The turbine and combustor, being designed and built by Toshiba, essentially combine gas turbine and steam turbine technologies, with the potential to deliver a power plant with:   ● Efficiency of about 59% (LHV) when running on natural gas ● Efficiency of 51-52% (LHV) when running on gasified coal (syngas) ● Full 100% carbon capture at 300 bar without any efficiency penalty.   Since 2012, Toshiba has been developing a new turbine and combustor for the new CO2 power cycle 

RE: [geo] Gearing up for a new supercritical CO2 power cycle system

[markcapron]

If the news release is consistent with typical industry reporting for future power plants, the pure O2 is included in the efficiency numbers as part of the process.  That is hinted in the paragraph "Since 2012, Toshiba ... to build a 25MW gross electric (50MWt) demonstration in Texas."  This is not surprising because the energy to compress the O2 likely dominates over the energy to separate.At least three options: cyrogenic distillation, membrane separation, pressure swing adsorption.  Last I checked cyrogenic had an economic edge at the volumes needed for power generation, but that is changing constantly.  There are some nifty heat/pressure exchanging energy efficiencies possible with any of the three.Mark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: Re: [geo] Gearing up for a new supercritical CO2 power cycle
system
From: Greg Rau 
Date: Mon, April 11, 2016 2:13 pm
To: "andrew.lock...@gmail.com" , 
geoengineering 

"This CO2 turbine can be used with oxyfuel combustion giving CCS with no secondary plant or energy penalty. "GR - But what is the energy penalty of supplying high conc O2?    From: Andrew Lockley  To: geoengineering   Sent: Wednesday, April 6, 2016 12:56 AM Subject: [geo] Gearing up for a new supercritical CO2 power cycle system   Poster's note : relevant to BECCS. This CO2 turbine can be used with oxyfuel combustion giving CCS with no secondary plant or energy penalty. Any source of syngas (eg photocatalytic) can then be turned into a CO2 stream in an efficient thermal power plant. Theoretically, it can also be used for combined heat and power.  http://www.gasturbineworld.com/gearing-up.html Gearing up for a new supercritical CO2 power cycle system Toshiba has almost completed detailed design in preparation for a turbine that will use carbon dioxide as the working fluid. 25MWe Demo Plant. Design features a single can-type combustor and double-shell turbine structure, scaled-down model of a 250-300MWe turbine design for a commercial plant. The case for building new coal fired plants or back-fitting existing coal plants with carbon capture technology is economically unattractive. The case for equipping gas-fired plants with carbon capture and storage (CCS) is even more difficult to justify.   High capital cost, combined with the penalty in efficiency that the capture process places on the power plant, has so far proved to be a major stumbling block in the commercial deployment of power plants with CCS.   A solution that has been under serious development for the last 5 or 6 years, however, has now reached the stage where the key component – a new type of turbine and combustor – is close to the start of manufacturing.   The turbine and combustor, being designed and built by Toshiba, essentially combine gas turbine and steam turbine technologies, with the potential to deliver a power plant with:   ● Efficiency of about 59% (LHV) when running on natural gas ● Efficiency of 51-52% (LHV) when running on gasified coal (syngas) ● Full 100% carbon capture at 300 bar without any efficiency penalty.   Since 2012, Toshiba has been developing a new turbine and combustor for the new CO2 power cycle together with NET Power, CB, Exelon and 8 Rivers Capital. The five companies have now completed major agreements to build a 25MW gross electric (50MWt) demonstration plant in Texas.   Through the successful completion of operating tests, the demonstration plant is intended to provide the basis for construction of the first 295MWe full-scale commercial plant.   CO2 power cycle NET Power LLC was formed almost six years ago by 8 Rivers Capital, a technology commercialization firm based in North Carolina (and inventor of the supercritical CO2 power cycle) with a clear and different approach to tackling the problem of burning fossil fuels more cleanly.   Instead of trying to “fix” supercritical coal, IGGC (integrated gasification combined cycle) or natural gas combined cycle power plants, 8 Rivers looked at designing a fossil based system from scratch that achieves the desired end result. The cycle produces pipeline-ready CO2 and no air emissions without reducing plant efficiency or increasing costs.   In 2009, Rodney Allam, a former head of technology development at Air Products, joined the company to work on a new thermodynamic cycle so all the emissions are controlled from the outset  --  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.  --  You 

RE: Re[2]: [geo] carbon sequestration by oysters

[markcapron]

Michael,Resource recovery on the contaminated oyster meat is ready for demonstration at about 10 wet tons per day with Hydrothermal Processes (HTP).  Larger scale, but more expensive, with Supercritical Water Oxidation (SCWO).These technologies are demonstrating and making proposals to recover resources from sewage sludge with first commercial scale units that or larger.  I expect we will recover Phosphate and other metals as a clay like sludge which can be dried and shipped for processing.  Depending on the temperature of operation, we can recover most of the N as ammonia.  Pharmaceuticals and other carbon/hydrocarbon will be converted to bio-oil and biogas (HTP) or heat-to-electricity (SCWO).Mark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [geo] carbon sequestration by oysters
From: Michael Hayes 
Date: Fri, March 11, 2016 3:36 pm
To: Maggie Zhou 
Cc: geoengineering , 
"oe...@gm-ingenieurbuero.com" , 
"oliver.tick...@kyoto2.org" , 
"andrew.lock...@gmail.com" , 
"renaud.derich...@gmail.com" ,
"gh...@sbcglobal.net" 

Maggie et al.,Your absolutely correct on the contamination transfer issue and the importance of getting that issue recognized in such papers and discussions. In my original post on this subject (thread), I mentioned that I still have not figured out what to do with the contaminated oyster meat. About the only long term disposal would be in deep wells or run through a plasma incinerator equipped with an extensive emissions filtration system.However, oyster RAS systems may offer the best approach to trapping the contaminates and we need to come up with some form of profit incentive to spark building such systems globally. A large number of high level analyses are pointing to the sewage contamination issue as a top environmental, human health care, and policy issue.Also, it is important to make clear that not all oyster (or mariculture in general) will be contaminated and that the advanced cultivation technology now available and in current use can deliver both environmental and nutrient benefits on a global scale. Bringing this technology to the global scale is the lowest hanging fruit in the geoengineering spectrum as cheaper/better food and cleaner waters are critical to improving the global carbon balance (or imbalance). Michael  Michael Hayes  On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 5:46 AM, Maggie Zhou  wrote:1. Has anyone bothered to contact the authors of the paper (or the journal editors) that Andrew sent out at the beginning of this thread (growing oysters to sequester C)?  They need to be informed of their misunderstanding of the ocean chemistry regarding carbon.2. Municipal water treatment is (or at least should be) about getting rid of far more than organic matter and nutrients in the waste water.  There are heavy metals, toxic industrial compounds including persistent pesticides, and radioactive material (diluted and discharged, as following the hare-brained doctrine "the solution to pollution is dilution"), etc.  This whole aspect of decontamination seems to be missing in the upbeat papers about growing food to feed more people out of waste water.MaggieOn Tuesday, March 8, 2016 7:27 PM, Michael Hayes  wrote:  Greg et al.,Concerning your question "On what basis: per m^2, per mol of photons, per $ invested??? Do you mean aquaculture?": The exact technology which I'm referring to is Recirculating Aquaculture Systems (RAS). Below is a 5 yo paper which covers the basic technology and evaluates the benefits. In the last 5 years, however, there have been further technical improvements which have raised the basic profit profile and reduced cultivation complexities as well as increased overall environmental sustainability. Principle actors in the aqua-protein market, such as Tyson Seafood, are expanding their use of RAS and have started using a fully circular method in which the fish solid waste is used to grow microalgae which, in turn, is used to feed copepods-kril which are then used as fish feed. Currently, it is a 1:1 feed to fish pound ratio yet they hope to get below that level soon. It is my belief that once these advanced RAS operations begin to be established on the ocean surface (or below it), The environmental sustainability and profits will significantly increase as the oceans offer easily converted renewable energy, passive thermal support, free spacial accommodation, fewer regulatory burdens, as well as an abundance (if not an over abundance) of nutrients to drive the primary production.   New developments in recirculating aquaculture systems in Europe: Aperspective on environmental sustainabilityC.I.M. Martinsa, b, *, E.H. Edinga , M.C.J. Verdegema , L.T.N. Heinsbroeka , O. 

RE: [geo] The latest bad news on carbon capture from coal power plants: higher costs

[markcapron]

If coal plants cannot capture their own CO2 anywhere near economically, then they should be made to pay someone else to capture CO2.  Ocean Forests volunteer.  Our new ecosystem with a hydrothermal process replacing anaerobic digestion produces converts 40% of input carbon to bio-oil and 60% of input carbon to a 60:40 (CH4:CO2) biogas.  (Also recovers the nutrients as commercial grade fertilizers, and we could recover metals separately when using hyperaccumulating plants to mine for metals).At 40% the CO2 is twice the concentration of coal plant exhaust gas using air for combustion.The CO2 capture and storage is inexpensive because it is a by-product of the energy production.Unfortunately, we cannot scale to more than 100% of global energy demand.  However, we can address legacy carbon as follows.  After we put the fossil fuel industry out of business, there would be no credits to pay for additional sequestering.  But we can raise energy costs about 10% to pay for continued capture and storage.  The fossil fuel industry won't revive because they would know we can make their investments worthless by stopping CCS and selling energy for less.Mark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: [geo] The latest bad news on carbon capture from coal power
plants: higher costs
From: Andrew Lockley 
Date: Mon, December 07, 2015 3:38 pm
To: geoengineering 

Poster's note : It's likely similar errors have crept into the economic arguments for BECCS  https://theconversation.com/the-latest-bad-news-on-carbon-capture-from-coal-power-plants-higher-costs-51440 The latest bad news on carbon capture from coal power plants: higher costs December 3, 2015 11.06am GMT  Sarang Supekar and Steve Skerlos Coal powered much of the industrial revolution and continues to fuel economic growth in developing nations, including China and India. The dark side of coal, however, is that it generates large quantities of the heat-trapping greenhouse gases, mostly carbon dioxide (CO2), that lead to climate change. This CO2 pollution is in addition to other emissions from coal burning that lead tothousands of premature deaths per day around the world. It was once thought that the CO2 emissions from coal power stations could be controlled by burying CO2 underground economically. However, our recent analysis published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology shows that the concept of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) will be significantly more expensive than previously thought because previous studies miscalculated the energy required. As such, it’s unlikely to provide an economically viable solution to CO2 pollution from coal-based power generators. Coal and global carbon budget As countries think about possible ways to cut their greenhouse gas emissions at the UN Climate Summit in Paris, developing a strategy to curb emissions from coal will be essential to taking meaningful action on climate change. Globally, the use of coal for heat and electricity accounted for over 14 billion metric tonnes (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2014 according to the International Energy Agency. This comprises about one-third of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions. Coal being unloaded from a cargo train in India. China and India collectively have more than 175 gigatons of coal reserves.nicksarebi/flickr Atmospheric concentration of CO2 today is about 400 parts per million (ppm). Our analysis shows that if today’s coal power plants continue operating through the end of their expected service life, they would collectively emit 260 gigatons to 350 gigatons of CO2 by 2050, which would increase CO2 concentration by another 13-18 ppm. Scientists have recommended that CO2 concentration needs to stay within 430-480 ppm to avoid dangerous interference with the climate (defined as two degrees Celsius rise in temperature relative to preindustrial revolution). Coal use in existing power plants alone will thus consume about a third to a half of the remaining “carbon budget” that humanity has to avoid reaching that threshold. CCS to the rescue? Acknowledging the importance of coal in world economic growth alongside the need to reduce CO2 emissions has led to great interest in “Carbon Capture & Sequestration” (CCS) technology. Prominent studies such as Pacala and Socolow, Williams et al, and Hertwich et alsuggest a suite of strategies to meet the CO2 challenge. Notably, all these studies assume the widespread deployment of CCS. For example, Hertwich et al project that CCS would contribute to nearly 85% of global CO2 emission reduction by 2050. CCS essentially involves keeping CO2 out of the atmosphere by capturing the CO2 produced from fossil fuels, compressing it under high pressure, and then transporting it via pipelines or ships for storage in the deep ocean or underground geological reservoirs. How post-combustion carbon capture and storage 

RE: [geo] Re: The importance of bio-CCS to deliver negative emissions

[markcapron]

Brian,Photosynthesis is good only for small scale carbon sequestration unless you somehow avoid sequestering the other plant nutrients (N, P, K, etc.) with the carbon.  Terrestrial photosynthesis also requires fresh water, which is another crisis.Mark 


 Original Message 
Subject: [geo] Re: The importance of bio-CCS to deliver negative
emissions
From: Brian Cartwright 
Date: Sun, December 06, 2015 5:09 am
To: geoengineering 
Cc: "R. D. Schuiling (Olaf)" 

To geoengineering,I always notice that CCS seems to attach itself to "bio" and "bioenergy with" to give itself a natural aura. Is this warranted or greenwashing?On another occasion when I was critical along these lines Olaf Schuiling emailed me to say that converting CO2 to carbonates is what has been happening for billions of years.Is this in fact what happens when pressurized CO2 is injected into underground formations? Or is that conversion such a slow process that we have an expensive engineered time bomb in the interim?These facts don't appear in any discussion I've seen, and as a layman I think they are central to evaluating CCS. Without knowing whether injected CO2 verifiably creates stable carbonates I tend to think CCS is ill-conceived, and photosynthesis is by far my preference for managing CO2.BrianOn Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 11:57:12 AM UTC-5, Andrew Lockley wrote: http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/insights/authors/AliceGibson/2015/11/25/importance-bio-ccs-deliver-negative-emissions?author=MTU0Nw%3D%3D The importance of bio-CCS to deliver negative emissions< snipped >   --  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.

RE: [geo] Bioenergy Out: Why bioenergy should not be included in the next EU Renewable Energy Directive

[markcapron]

Greg,All explained in my email to NOAH:Dear NOAH,Thank you for the accurate and important analysis in your EU-Bioenergy-Briefing2.Would you consider renaming to "Terrestrial Bioenergy Out?"  Or update your "What is bioenergy?" sidebar to specifically exempt "ocean seaweed biofuel" from your concerns?Ocean seaweed biofuel is explained in a peer reviewed paper:http://oceanforesters.org/uploads/NegativeCarbonViaOceanAfforestation2012Authors.pdf.  It avoids the issues of terrestrial biofuels primarily because it addresses the nutrients cycle.  The sun powers photosynthesis to grow a seaweed forest.  We harvest 1/365th of the forest every day.  We separate the carbon from all the other nutrients, so that the nutrients are recycled locally.  (We are not consuming fresh water either.)  The carbon is exported from the system for either energy or sequestration.  Ideally, this is more 3D-forestry than 3D-farming.  The ocean forest habitat should shelter a lot of incidental seafood growth, which might be exported within the limits of nutrient cycling. There are several European organizations attempting seaweed-to-energy.  More organizations farming seaweed-to-food.  It isn't easy.  Most of our work is being coordinated with the University of the South Pacific.  Seaweed forests might yet save island nations and their coral reef ecosystems.MarkMark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: Re: [geo] Bioenergy Out: Why bioenergy should not be included
in the next EU Renewable Energy Directive
From: Greg Rau 
Date: Wed, November 04, 2015 12:17 pm
To: "Geoengineering@googlegroups.com" 

Indeed, there are impacts and negatives to current bioenergy, but to take BE off the table would seem rather drastic, and assumes that BE can't be made safer/better and can contribute at some scale. Meantime, the report counters IPCC et al's love affair with BECCS. This is why a much broader view including ocean and abiotic approaches to CDR and energy need to also be considered rather than prematurely assuming land biology is going to singlehandedly save the day.Greg    From: Andrew Lockley  To: Geoengineering@googlegroups.com  Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2015 12:55 AM Subject: [geo] Bioenergy Out: Why bioenergy should not be included in the next EU Renewable Energy Directive   Poster's note : yet more controversy over the bio energy assumed in official BECCS projections. Bioenergy Out: Why bioenergy  should not be included in the  next EU Renewable Energy  Directive By NOAH (Friends of the  Earth Denmark), Biofu-  elwatch, Econexus, Global  Forest Coalition, World  Rainforest Movement,  Rettet den Regenwald/  Rainforest Rescue, and Cor-  porate Europe Observatory  --  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.

Not so RE: [geo] Carbon reduction incentive.

[markcapron]

Stephen and all,Dr. MacKay's premise is wrong.  Nations do not have to agree "on a common goal in everyone's self-interest."Rather a fraction of one big self-interested nation can drive every other nation.  The U.S. has a very vocal and well-funded subgroup of people and politicians who see small government and free markets as a more important issues than climate change.  The same group is also annoyed with China, Russia, the Iran treaty.It's the truth: American advancements in fracking and plenty of other technologies have given America cheap "fossil" energy.  American businesses would benefit from a price on carbon in a manner which favors small government and free markets.  Part of the carbon fee would come from imports proportional to the carbon footprint of the country of origin.  American could export pre-paid fossil fuels.  Russian and Middle-East oils would become worth less.  Iran would have less money to export terror.Anybody here from the tribe of small-government in a position to push this message?Mark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: [geo] Carbon reduction incentive.
From: Stephen Salter 
Date: Tue, October 13, 2015 8:56 am
To: geoengineering 

 Hi All  Check out  http://www.nature.com/news/price-carbon-i-will-if-you-will-1.18538  Stephen--  Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JL, Scotland s.sal...@ed.ac.uk, Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704, Cell 07795 203 195, WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change--  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. 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.
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.

RE: [geo] Contrasting futures for ocean and society from different anthropogenic CO2 emissions scenarios Carbon emissions and their ocean impacts

[markcapron]

Greg,Ocean Scientists need to do a better job of explaining that "hands-off-the-oceans" isn't working, ocean science and engineering is at the beginning of the learning curve with way more opportunity for Earth and Water saving results than terrestrial research. Also, ocean-based research toward greenhouse gas issues will solve more immediate needs for food, fresh water, and energy. Traditional Marine Sanctuaries are notThe world’s oceans are in peril from warming, acidification,
contaminants in terrestrial runoff, overfishing, etc. Of these perils, there is no prospect of
marine sanctuary safe from warming and acidification, both of which result from
increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Warming presents several dangers: 1) organisms
are weakened or die from heat stress; 2) warmer water holds less dissolved
oxygen (fish die); 3) less oxygen means less ammonia converted to nitrate (more
toxins, less plant food); 4) less oxygen favors more conversion of nitrate to
nitrogen gas (less plant food). Acidification weakens and kills shell-forming
creatures causing mass extinctions up the food chain.Warming from increased CO2 in the atmosphere lags
fossil fuel burning by a few decades and persists for a millennium. The pH reduction spreads through the oceans
more quickly, but is also not instantaneous.
Even if humanity stopped burning fossil fuels today, the ocean continues
warming and pH dropping such that traditional Marine Sanctuaries might delay,
but won’t prevent mass extinctions within and around them.Actively managed Marine Sanctuaries can beActively managed
Marine Sanctuaries, ecosystem seaweed farming, can be oases for diverse sea life
with cool, oxygen-rich, higher pH.water.
Seaweed absorb CO2
and emit O2 during
photosynthesis. Less dissolved CO2 means higher pH water for more robust
shell-forming. More dissolved O2 means fish can breathe, ammonia gets
converted to nitrate, more nitrate remains to sustain plant growth. The need for cooling is temporary, perhaps a
few weeks per year now, increasing to a few months per year within a century.Actively managed
Marine Sanctuaries are more easily established when they address other pressing
human and ocean issues: food; fresh water; excess nutrient deadzones;
overfishing; etc.Some
Ocean Foresters are involved in a trial of this concept with the University of
Washington and the Puget Sound Restoration Fund.Other human issues put pressure on oceansHumanity already
sees strife and hunger due to population increase, expectations increase, greenhouse
gases, fresh water shortage, and fresh water uncertainty. While attempting to grow more terrestrial
foods, humanity creates ocean dead zones and overdrafts groundwater
supplies. The increased atmospheric CO2
makes it harder for terrestrial farmers to obtain bank loans because the
farmers (and the banks) cannot count on historic weather. (Plant a drought tolerant crop or a flood
tolerant crop?) The United Nations is
predicting population will peak near 10 billion people around 2050, but with
food and energy expectations nearer to the expectations of double today’s 7
billion.

































MarkMark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: Re: [geo] Contrasting futures for ocean and society from
different anthropogenic CO2 emissions scenarios Carbon emissions and
their ocean impacts
From: Greg Rau gh...@sbcglobal.net
Date: Fri, July 03, 2015 12:20 pm
To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com,
andrew.lock...@gmail.com
Cc: gatt...@obs-vlfr.fr, mark.ea...@noaa.gov,  Ove Hoegh-Guldberg
o...@uq.edu.au, rpke...@uw.edu

Thanks, Andrew. From the paper:

"Management options
Limiting the effects of ocean warming and acid- ification is critical considering the widespread risks of impacts facing natural and human sys- tems, even under a stringent emissions scenario (RCP2.6; Fig. 2). A growing body of literature presents options for action in response to climate change and ocean acidification (143–145). Draw- ing on Billé et al. (146), these actions can be clus- tered in four groups (Fig. 4): reducing the drivers of climate change and ocean acidification (mit- igate), building or maintaining resilience in eco- systems (protect), adapting human societies (adapt), and repairing damage that has already occurred (repair). At present, only one of these (reducing CO2 emissions) addresses the fundamental prob- lem; the others merely delay or decrease impacts (e.g., protecting reefs from major disturbances such as coral mining). Some actions rely on readi- ly available technologies (e.g., sewage treatment plants to reduce
 exacerbating effects of coastal nutrient pollution) and socioeconomic mecha- nisms (e.g., coastal setback zones), whereas more engineering-intensive techniques are being devel- oped and will require testing (e.g., removal of CO2 from the atmosphere). These options inter- act. For example, reducing secondary environmen- tal stressors so as 

RE: [geo] Future productivity and carbon storage limited by terrestrial nutrient availability : Nature Geoscience

[markcapron]

The world does not have enough plant nutrients. The lack of nutrients "turns the land surface into a net source of CO2 by 2100."Therefore, if one wishes for biologic reductions in atmospheric, oceanic, and terrestrial CO2 concentrations which last for millennium, one must store the carbon without storing the nutrients. One must separate the carbon from the nutrients near (a few kilometers) the growing plants and return the nutrients to grow more plants over large areas (5% of ocean surface) but in short time frames (a few months). That is: one must accelerate natural processes with about 30 time current artificial organic N production while unnaturally pulling carbon out of the cycle.But that alone is not good enough. The process must spin off food for 10 billion people with developed country demands without using fresh water. Otherwise the pursuit of food and fresh water will remain the higher value market.Ocean Forests.Mark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: [geo] Future productivity and carbon storage limited by
terrestrial nutrient availability : Nature Geoscience
From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, July 02, 2015 1:49 pm
To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com

Poster's note : relevant to BECS, CROPS and other bioremediation of CO2 pollution  http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v8/n6/abs/ngeo2413.html Future productivity and carbon storage limited by terrestrial nutrient availability William R. Wieder, Cory C. Cleveland, W. Kolby Smith  Katherine Todd-Brown Nature Geoscience 8, 441–444 (2015) doi:10.1038/ngeo2413 20 April 2015 The size of the terrestrial sink remains uncertain. This uncertainty presents a challenge for projecting future climate–carbon cycle feedbacks1, 2, 3, 4. Terrestrial carbon storage is dependent on the availability of nitrogen for plant growth5, 6, 7, 8, and nitrogen limitation is increasingly included in global models9, 10, 11. Widespread phosphorus limitation in terrestrial ecosystems12 may also strongly regulate the global carbon cycle13, 14, 15, but explicit considerations of phosphorus limitation in global models are uncommon16. Here we use global state-of-the-art coupled carbon–climate model projections of terrestrial net primary productivity and carbon storage from 1860–2100; estimates of annual new nutrient inputs from deposition, nitrogen fixation, and weathering; and estimates of carbon allocation and stoichiometry to evaluate how simulated CO2 fertilization effects could be constrained by nutrient availability. We find that the nutrients required for the projected increases in net primary productivity greatly exceed estimated nutrient supply rates, suggesting that projected productivity increases may be unrealistically high. Accounting for nitrogen and nitrogen–phosphorus limitation lowers projected end-of-century estimates of net primary productivity by 19% and 25%, respectively, and turns the land surface into a net source of CO2 by 2100. We conclude that potential effects of nutrient limitation must be considered in estimates of the terrestrial carbon sink strength through the twenty-first century.  --  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.

Counter culture of absurd caution RE: [geo] Harvard Kennedy School - David Keith, Shaking the Establishment

[markcapron]

Andrew,Concerning the "culture of absurd caution" - more of us might want to suggest our government agencies employ a different RD agreement mechanism. DOE recently requested feedback on how they could do a better job funding RD. One of the categories was "Agreement Mechanism." The mechanism I suggested could be applied for any CO2 capture technology. One would substitute $/ton of C stored into the energy example I used. If thickening Arctic sea ice, one might substitute $/hectare of ice cover increased from Summer 2014 minimum:Agreement mechanisms – Current agreements which pay a large
fraction of RD costs are appropriate for early stage RD. The loan program is Ok for really large ($100
million) late-stage full scale production projects. DOE should add another kind of agreement for
moving technologies from about Technical Readiness Level 4-5 to TRL 8-9. That is: if it works, DOE pays. If it doesn’t work, DOE doesn’t pay.Many
of DOE’s potential partners and customers hit a wall when the project cost is
$1m to $20m and technology is unproven at that scale. The potential customers (particularly local
governments) do not want to chance even an “only pay, if it works” because they
cannot define “works” within their infrastructure due to uncertainties on
possible interactions with existing infrastructure. (It’s a question of going first. Customers need large rewards to overcome
their aversion to going first on a new technology.) Investors for the technology provider would
be willing to accept an “only paid, if it works” contract, but only if the rewards
justify the risks.For
example – The Pacific Northwest National Laboratory’s hydrothermal
waste-to-energy process combined with an ammonia, phosphorus, potassium and
other metals recovery process appears economically viable on Guam. But the first $10 million TRL 7 demonstration
to transform wastewater treatment plant sludge and used lubrication oils into
electricity has insufficient reward, given the first-time risk, for both
customers and investors. Once past the
first-time risk, it can grow to transform general wet organic municipal
waste-to-energy in Guam and Hawaii. Then
grow to transform global wastes (particularly refugee camps) to energy. Then become a component for converting ocean
nutrient deserts into food, energy, and ocean acidification solving ecosystems.Solution
– Increase the rewards of the project, while reducing DOE’s risk. Facilitate “only pay, if it works” contracts
by offering to increase the reward on a unit quantity basis. In the Guam example, DOE might contribute
$0.05/kWh for ten years of produced energy, paid to the Guam Power Authority as
it is produced by the Guam Power Authority from the hydrothermal biogas.DOE risk tolerance – See above agreement mechanism. Use “only pay for useful products” contracts
with a minimum of application paperwork to sidestep risk assessments. Aim for, advertise, and recruit for a 50%
failure rate. It’s not DOE money on the
line for a failure. Ideally, the
RDDD providers and their investors select themselves. DOE tweaks the ease of application and tunes
the incentives to compensate for the 50% failure rate.DOE
can also negotiate more technologies into projects. For example, suppose DOE wants to prototype a
1 MW fuel cell for combined heat and power.
DOE might convince the parties participating in the Guam project to
employ the fuel cell by increasing DOE’s ten-year electricity subsidy. (The hydrothermal process needs
high-temperature waste heat, like that from many fuel cells.)







DOE might need to set aside
10% of project costs for the customer (not the technology provider) to use when
removing “didn’t work” projects.













Mark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: [geo] Harvard Kennedy School - David Keith, Shaking the
Establishment
From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com
Date: Mon, June 15, 2015 12:07 am
To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/news-events/news/articles/david-keith Extract Planning his next Arctic wilderness trip. Keith says we’re at an environmental inflection point. Despite promising technology and social movements that will nudge smarter policies, public investment in focused energy RD is “pitifully small” – less than we spend on nuclear weapons development. Given the importance of these efforts, Keith says, “that’s just goofy.” Culture of “absurd caution” Even more important than higher budgets, he says, is something counterintuitive: higher tolerance for failure. A major contributor of technological stagnation, he argues, is a “culture of absurd caution.” Scientific institutions like NASA and parts of DOE have become bureaucracies with minimal tolerance for failure. “If failure cannot be tolerated,” Keith says, “then you are certain to avoid success.” This culture cannot be changed by blaming agencies. Government leaders need the courage to reframe fiascos like Solyndra 

RE: [geo] Impacts of ocean albedo alteration on Arctic sea ice restoration and Northern Hemisphere climate - ERL

[markcapron]

Mike,Good point. I have an expired patent on an offshore oil production structure which could fend off sea ice in 100 meter water depth on the North Slope of Alaska. The economics looked acceptable just before the price of oil dropped back in the '80s.Our situation is different now. If it were a permit condition, oil companies could figure out how to permanently ground sea ice around platforms at some distance, say 100 meters. Or the platform might be solid ice 100 meters deep frozen into the sea floor, 50 meters above sea level, 1 kilometer in diameter. It might need summer insulation and/or a summer maintenance chiller.Mark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: Re: [geo] Impacts of ocean albedo alteration on Arctic sea ice
restoration and Northern Hemisphere climate - ERL
From: Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net
Date: Mon, May 04, 2015 9:46 am
To: a...@env.leeds.ac.uk, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@gmail.com
Cc: Stephen Salter s.sal...@ed.ac.uk, John Latham
lat...@ncar.ucar.edu, Ben Parkes ben.par...@lsce.ipsl.fr,
Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com

Going back just a bit in the message chain, the way that the oil companies
are planning on protecting the oil platforms from the shifting of sea ice
is, as I understand it from comments a couple of years ago by the head of
the world's leading icebreaker naval architecture company in Helsinki, is to
have two icebreakers upwind of each oil platform breaking up the large
plates of sea ice headed toward the platform. Given how much force wind on
sea ice and then sea ice on a platform could exert, I rather doubt the idea
of having a sheet of ice around the platforms would be the approach they
would be using.

Now, while the icebreakers may be able to break the large sheets of ice into
smaller pieces, in doing this there is greater transport of heat from the
water to the atmosphere, and this leads to greater formation of ice (which
is why when icebreakers are helping ships get through, they need the ships
to follow pretty close behind). So, the icebreakers (and this would be true
in the Great Lakes and Hudson River, both of which had icebreakers working
during this past cold winter) may provide a short-term benefit in protecting
the oil platforms, their longer term effect (assuming they are doing this
during the fall and winter when the Sun is not up) would be to increase the
formation of sea ice.

Mike MacCracken


On 5/4/15, 11:32 AM, "Alan Gadian" a...@env.leeds.ac.uk wrote:

 
 Ken,
 
 Can I comment here please.  Without negating any of your comments, I would
 like to add that Marine Cloud Brightening (MCB) is very effective at
 cooling the polar regimes. The atmospheric heat engine's purpose is to
 transfer heat from the equator to the pole.  Cooling the tropical /
 subtropical regimes by reflecting solar radiation there will very
 effectively cool the poles.  Of course reflecting solar radiation in polar
 regions will cool those regions, but in the winter the subtropical albedo
 increase will be very effective.
 
 Cheers
 Alan
 
 p.s. Ben Parkes and many others hope to get a paper out on this soon.
 
 On Mon, 4 May 2015, Ken Caldeira wrote:
 
 I sent this out before but it was rejected because of too many attachments,
 so here it is with fewer attachments.
 
 
 Folks,
 It would be good to do an ice thickening simulation, but I don't think the
 results will differ widely from our Arctic ocean albedo simulations.
 
 To restore sea ice to pre-industrial conditions with a 2xCO2 atmosphere
 using top-of-atmosphere insolation changes (a stand in for idealized
 aerosols), we needed to reduce insolation north of 70 degrees N by about
 25%. This effected a global cooling on nearly 2 C. (Caldeira and Wood 2008)
 http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/366/1882/4039.figures-only
 
 When we whitened the ocean north of 70 N, we achieved an Arctic cooling of
 about 2 C. That is to say, the effect of ocean whitening was an order of
 magnitude less.
 
 Cooling the Arctic enough to regrow Arctic sea ice yields a lot more cooling
 than do direct efforts to regrow the same amount of Arctic sea ice.
 
 Sea ice loss is a symptom of warming as well as a climate feedback. Treating
 this symptom treats part but far from all of the warming.
 
 I would regard this conclusion as tentative, but a good working hypothesis
 for future exploration.
 
 Best,
 
 Ken
 
 PS. We also had another relevant study where we directly added and removed
 sea ice from the Arctic, but in a model where meridional ocean heat
 transport could not respond. (Caldeira and Cvijanovic 2014)
 
 
 ___
 Ken Caldeira
 
 Carnegie Institution for ScienceDept of Global Ecology
 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
 +1 650 704 7212kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu
 website:http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/
 blog:http://kencaldeira.org
 @KenCaldeira
 
 My assistant is Dawn Ross dr...@carnegiescience.edu, with access to
 incoming 

RE: [geo] Impacts of ocean albedo alteration on Arctic sea ice restoration and Northern Hemisphere climate - ERL

[markcapron]

Team,So who has a lot of money and might be convinced to thicken sea ice?The offshore oil industry, the shipping industry, and governments around the Arctic planning to benefit from both oil and shipping.Sea ice prevents the formation of large surface waves by limiting fetch. Sea ice dampens waves to zero within a few hundred meters. Sea ice is destroyed by surface waves. (Mark Harris, "Waves of Destruction", Scientific American, May 2015).Oil companies could shelter oil platforms with grounded rings of sea ice. Shipping companies would benefit from calm water. Could the governments of Canada, Denmark, Norway, and the United States be convinced to make covering the Arctic Ocean with summer sea ice a condition of ship passage or oil development?Mark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: Re: [geo] Impacts of ocean albedo alteration on Arctic sea ice
restoration and Northern Hemisphere climate - ERL
From: John Nissen johnnissen2...@gmail.com
Date: Sat, May 02, 2015 10:56 am
To: Peter Flynn pcfl...@ualberta.ca
Cc: Ken Caldeira kcalde...@gmail.com, Andrew Lockley
andrew.lock...@gmail.com,  "Cvijanovic, Ivana" cvijanov...@llnl.gov,
geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com,  Doug MacMartin
macma...@cds.caltech.edu, Sev Clarke sevcla...@me.com,  Bru Pearce
b...@portgeorge.com

Hi Peter,As the paper points out, projections for sea ice suggest that the Arctic Ocean will be seasonably free before mid-century [1], and this will pose challenges in the Arctic; but there are potential impacts on the whole planet from the Arctic being locked into rapid warming:1. sea level will rise ever faster;2. methane bubbling up from the ocean bed in ever increasing quantities could add disastrously to global warming;3. the jet stream could be further disrupted, causing extreme climate change in the Northern Hemisphere [2].Thus saving the sea ice takes on a high priority for urgent action. To minimise risk of extreme impacts, we need to restore sea ice by employing both cooling techniques (such as tropospheric cloud brightening, stratospheric aerosol cooling and ocean brightening) and ice thickening techniques. Furthermore we need to deal with growing impacts of Arctic warming in the pipeline: preparing for sea level rise; suppressing and/or capturing methane; and adapting to more extreme climate change than already seen this century as the jet stream meanders more and gets stuck for longer periods.It may be possible to combine some of these techniques. For example, sea ice could be thickened such as to capture methane bubbling up underneath it. We need urgent study on this kind of intervention, and I would be grateful if the geoengineering googlegroup forum could be used for an open discussion on the possibilities.Cheers, John[1] Many reputable scientists now say that the Arctic Ocean could be seasonally ice free by 2030; and a few top sea ice experts point to the observed volume trend which suggests September ice free by 2020.[2] See Scientific American, May 2015 issue, on Arctic waves, with reference to extreme climate change in the past.On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 7:12 PM, Peter Flynn peter.fl...@ualberta.ca wrote:If the object is restoration of sea ice, I continue to believe that a direct approach of thickening sea ice by pumping sea water onto it, thereby circumventing the self insulating feature of natural formation of sea ice, is the quickest, most direct, and most proven approach, easily terminated if any unintended consequence is observed.Thickening ice by putting water onto the surface of existing ice is well proven for both fresh water and sea water. Ice roads throughout the north, including the supply road to Leningrad during WWII, are built this way. Sea water was used in the Beaufort Sea to quickly build ice islands to support drilling platforms, with maximum thicknesses greater than eight meters.To the extent that the ocean can be brightened without ice, it would perhaps make more sense to do this at lower latitude, to reflect more light per square meter of brightened surface.PeterPeter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for EngineersDepartment of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of Albertapeter.fl...@ualberta.cacell: 928 451 4455From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken CaldeiraSent: April-30-15 8:07 AMTo: Andrew LockleyCc: Cvijanovic, Ivana; geoengineering; Doug MacMartinSubject: Re: [geo] Impacts of ocean albedo alteration on Arctic sea ice restoration and Northern Hemisphere climate - ERLI agree that it would be good to investigate Arctic cloud brightening.We studiedArctic Ocean brighteningbecause ithas been proposed by ice911.org, among others, and has not yet been subject to scrutiny in a peer-reviewed context.Also, note that ocean surface whitening has a long pedigree, being proposed by none other than the President's Science Advisory Committee in 

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

[markcapron]

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, PEVentura, Californiawww.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, OlafFrom: 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 SchuilingFrom: 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 

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

[markcapron]

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 youMark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.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:https://carbonremoval.wordpress.com/2015/01/22/a-graphic-to-help-map-the-carbon-dioxide-removal-cdr-field/ 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 ablessing and a curse.On the bright side, the numerous approaches to CDR suggest the potential for deployinga diverse portfolio of CDR projects thatreduces 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 tocategorize and map the most prominent aspects ofCDR in as comprehensive and cleara manner as possible:It is critical to notethat 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.

RE: [geo] ARPA-C: How an Advanced Research Projects Agency for Carbon could Catalyze Development of the CDR Field | Everything and the Carbon Sink

[markcapron]

Humanity needs an ARPA-M (for multi-issue) more than humanity needs an ARPA-C.Humans have a powerful tendency to compartmentalize issues, problems, and solutions. Compartmentalizing is working against us for a big slow (by human time) issue like Climate Change. When humans do something on a big scale, like emitting 30 billion tons of fossil CO2 in a year, or increasing their number toward 10 billion, the causes and effects cover many issues: water, energy, food, the economy, ocean chemistry, sea level, ...The U.S. DOE and the ARPA's follow the human tendency to carefully organize research to avoid overlap and focus each Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) in a very narrow way. Proposals which address the issue in ways too novel for the DOE project team, or with a new approach in a "forbidden zone" or addressing more issues than mentioned in the FOA are typically "non-responsive" or "out of scope."This isn't just U.S. DOE. Look at the fragmentation of "contests" in MIT's Climate CoLab. Or the way XPrize structures their contests.If you want a carbon removal process which can scale to a few tens of billions of tons of CO2 per year, you really want a managed ecosystem. Something humanity can sustain for a couple centuries on the scale of agriculture or the fossil fuel industry. There are so many competing needs at that scale the carbon removal system needs to address at least some of those other needs:water, energy, food, jobs, the economy, ...MarkMark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: [geo] ARPA-C: How an Advanced Research Projects Agency for
Carbon could Catalyze Development of the CDR Field | Everything and the
Carbon Sink
From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, November 18, 2014 2:46 pm
To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com

http://carbonremoval.wordpress.com/2014/11/18/arpa-c-how-an-advanced-research-projects-agency-for-carbon-could-catalyze-development-of-the-cdr-field/ Everything and the Carbon Sink Noah Deich's blog on all things Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) ARPA-C: How an Advanced Research Projects Agency for Carbon could Catalyze Development of the CDR Field NOVEMBER 18, 2014 It has recently become clear that “negative” emissions technologies will likely prove a critical component for preventing climate change. Take, for example, the following sentence fromChapter 6 of the IPCC’s Working Group 3 latest Assessment Report on Climate Change: “The large majority of scenarios produced in the literature that reach roughly 450 ppm CO2eq by 2100 arecharacterized by concentration overshoot facilitated by the deployment of carbon dioxide removal (CDR)technologies.” The majority of the scenarios that keep the planet below 2 degrees C of warming (blue line) involve billion+ tonne scale deployments of negative emissions AND full decarbonization of the economy by the end of the century [source]. While CDR technologies have been thrust into prominence in the climate change debate, a major problem remains: currently, no CDR technologies exist that are scientifically, technically,andeconomically proven at the billion+ tonne scale required to prevent climate change. Lots of CDR approaches are under development, but none have clearly demonstrated the potential to provide negative emissions at the billion+ tonne scale in a sustainable and economically viable way. What’s more,CDR technologies will require significant amounts of investment not just in RD but also in markets to support these technologies once they mature. And government agencies, philanthropies, and private businesses alike are failing to make these necessary investments today.Above: Solar PV is just now beginning to be cost competitive with fossil energy — its development has taken decades of RD for both technologies and markets. Source: Bloomberg New Energy Finance.So how might we remedy this market failure and kickstart the development of CDR technologies? One way would be to create an “ARPA-C”, or an Advanced Research Project Agency for Carbon. Right now, the private sector cannot find investment cases for CDR RD, despite the fact that such investments would also generate immense social benefits — making the CDR field ideal for publicly-fundedapplied RD. If anARPA-C could fund CDR projects that result in technology cost reductions, advances in innovative business models, and bettermeasurement and verification tools for would-be carbon removers, it could set the stage for follow-on investment by private sector companies to bring the CDR field to scale.A new ARPA-C would also be critical for giving the CDR field much needed boost in awareness. Right nowexisting ARPA agencies (including DARPA and ARPA-E) could fund a number of various CDR projects. But none of these existing agencies currently have the mandate tofund the fullspectrum of CDR approaches that have been proposed (spanning the energy, agriculture, natural resources, manufacturing, and other 

RE: [geo] Re: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly of CO2 Utilization | Everything and the Carbon Sink

[markcapron]

Greg and Olaf,What might be the minimum inputs such that we could grow and sequester seashells while rapidly recycling most of the nutrients to grow more shellfish? http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/can-seashells-save-the-world-813915.html discusses "Not so, it seems, with the coccolithophore, or at least with the most abundant species, called Emiliania huxleyi. The latest study into this species shows that it appears to thrive on high levels of carbon dioxide. Instead of finding it difficult to make its calcium carbonate plates, as some scientists had expected, the organism can, in fact, make bigger and bigger plates as carbon dioxide concentrations are increased artificially, according to a study published in the current issue of the journal Science."Perhaps a more complex model of Ocean Forest would work with the carbon dioxide from the energy separation process (likely either anaerobic digestion or hydrothermal liquifaction) being sequestered as sea shells. In this case, we may have to sell the shellfish meat as food (people, pets, livestock, aquaculture fish) and import more basic nutrients or silicate minerals or calcium from a few 100-1,000 kilometers distant.MarkMark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: RE: [geo] Re: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly of CO2
Utilization | Everything and the Carbon Sink
From: "Rau, Greg" r...@llnl.gov
Date: Fri, November 14, 2014 11:54 am
To: "gh...@sbcglobal.net" gh...@sbcglobal.net, "Schuiling, R.D.
(Olaf)" r.d.schuil...@uu.nl, "voglerl...@gmail.com"
voglerl...@gmail.com, "geoengineering@googlegroups.com"
geoengineering@googlegroups.com

  Sorry, I meant "is biology affected?"   From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Greg Rau [gh...@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 10:46 AM To: Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf); voglerl...@gmail.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [geo] Re: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly of CO2 Utilization | Everything and the Carbon Sink  Olaf,  My preference is to make ocean alkalinity, dissolved Ca(HCO3)2 (and some CaCO3aq via equilibrium reactions), rather than solid CaCO3. Yes, you can use silicates to do this, but if you have elevated CO2 (FF or BE flue gas) and limestone/waste shell, the kinetics are faster.  As for just putting minerals directly into the ocean for CDR, it would be interesting add equal equivalences (2x and 1x respectively) of equal sized CaCO3 and Mg2SiO4 particles to separate beakers of sterilized seawater, agitate for a week in the dark, and then compare the resulting SW alkalinity to each other and to initial (and to agitated seawater without added minerals). Repeat without sterilization and in full light. Which treatments make the most alkalinity and does biology matter and/or is biology effected? ;-)  BTW congrats on the NYT spread. Let's hope some balance, sanity and open mindedness can be injected into the CDR debate.  Greg  From: "Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf)" r.d.schuil...@uu.nl To: "'gh...@sbcglobal.net'" gh...@sbcglobal.net; "voglerl...@gmail.com" voglerl...@gmail.com; "geoengineering@googlegroups.com" geoengineering@googlegroups.com  Sent: Friday, November 14, 2014 1:05 AM Subject: RE: [geo] Re: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly of CO2 Utilization | Everything and the Carbon Sink  Why first destroy CaCO3 and then remake it. Just add fine-grained olivine to add sufficient alkalinity, Olaf SchuilingFrom: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Greg Rau Sent: donderdag 13 november 2014 18:07 To: voglerl...@gmail.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [geo] Re: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly of CO2 Utilization | Everything and the Carbon Sink As I mentioned on Oct 7, in looking for large scale uses of CO2, how about environmental applications? By my reconning, the mean 0.1 decline in surface ocean pH translates into a calcium carbonate saturation state decline of 1 unit. To return this to pre-industrial levels we'd need to use 250 - 300 GT of CO2 to make enough dissolved calcium bicarbonate/carbonate which when added to the ocean would return saturation to pre-industrial levels. There may be analogies for countering soil and freshwater acidity. Anyway, plenty of need for inorganic carbonaceous materials and relatively easy to make from CO2, but paying customer demand/ government policy would obviously have to be developed. How much do we value shellfish, corals and the other biota being impacted?   Greg  From: Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  Sent: Wednesday, November 12, 2014 1:57 PM Subject: [geo] Re: The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly of CO2 Utilization | Everything and the Carbon Sink  [ND1] The concept of CO2 utilization goes something like this: instead of releasing CO2 into the atmosphere through industrial processes, we could instead 

RE: _[geo]_Does_CDR_provide_“moral_hazard”_for_a v oiding_deep_decarbonization_of_our_economy?_|_Everything_a nd _the_Carbon_Sink

[markcapron]

Dear Chuck,I like to think we are all on the same team with essentially the same two goals, 1) eliminate fossil fuel use, and 2) reduce impacts from the sudden increase in greenhouse gases. Our emphasis between the two goals, the scale of our efforts, and our planning horizon vary.Might you share a description of your most promising process? We should all be cheering however much fossil fuels you can displace. Perhaps the PODenergy/Ocean Foresters group can help you past the limits of scale. Based on what I have read below, you have at least two limits on scale: 1) You may cause a decrease in the commodity price of defatted algal biomass unless your production of same is coordinated with expansion of markets. We might help expand the fish feed market. Also, I have been pushing for someone to develop the algae-based equivalent of Plumpy'Nut (a peanut based paste with a long non-refrigerated shelf life ready-to-use therapeutic food.)2) You will be exporting all the fertilizer and CO2 needed to grow more algae with the biofuel and the defatted algal biomass. Eventually, the cost of supplying nutrients will become too expensive. We should discuss ways to extend the nutrient limit.Hitting these two limits is a great problem to have!MarkMark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: Re: _[geo]_Does_CDR_provide_“moral_hazard”_for_a v
oiding_deep_decarbonization_of_our_economy?_|_Everything_a nd
_the_Carbon_Sink
From: "Charles H. Greene" c...@cornell.edu
Date: Sat, November 08, 2014 8:32 am
To: "markcap...@podenergy.org" markcap...@podenergy.org
Cc: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com,Robert
Tulip rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au

 Dear Mark:   Robert Tulip’s conclusions about the“inefficiencies" of existing microalgal cultivation methods as analysed by Beal et al. in the manuscript,"Economically competitive algal biofuel production in a 100-ha facility: a comprehensive techno-economic analysis and life cycle assessment,” are his interpretations, not ours. We have conducted very rigorous techno-economic analyses and life cycle assessments of many potential line-ups, and we are very encouraged by the results for a few of them. I think that Robert’s reading of our manuscript was selective, with him only seeing in it the results that confirmed his preconceptions. Since our manuscript is currently under review, I shared it with him under the condition that he not share or distribute it yet. Once it has successfully passed through the peer-review process, I would be pleased to share it with all interested parties. I would like to point out that productivity rates to date exceed the DOE’s targets for 2018, and we envision algal biofuels that will be cost-competitive with fossil fuels once we derive the full value from potential co-products. One of our manuscript’s conclusions is that algal biofuels are unlikely to be cost competitive with fossil fuels (especially heavily subsidized ones) without deriving value from additional co-products. From our calculations, using“defatted”algal biomass as a nutritional supplement in animal feeds, while assuming the commodity price for soybeans of $400/MT, results in a biofuel price of ~$8/gallon. This greatly undervalues the algae, which has a far superior amino acid profile and other nutritional benefits (e.g., high omega 3 fatty acid content) relative to soybeans.Using“defatted”algal biomass as a supplement in fish feeds, while assuming the going commodity price of $1500/MT, results in a biofuel price of ~$2.50/gallon. The prospect of using algae directly in human nutrition has even greater economic benefits. There are lots of promising directions to go from here, so I am disappointed that Robert has chosen to portray our findings in an unfavorable light. For the purpose of scaling arguments, I would also like to point out that cultivating algae in an area the size of Wyoming can produce enough biofuel to meet the entire annual liquid-fuel transportation demand for the US while simultaneously producing an amount of protein 5.7x the annual global soy protein production. I believe these numbers, based on demonstration-scale field trials, should be a reason for optimism.   Sincerely, Chuck Greene   On Nov 8, 2014, at 8:51 AM,  geoengineering@googlegroups.com wrote:Response to comments from Mark CapronHi MarkThanks for your comments. My view is that microalgae is the best option for carbon dioxide removal as a geoengineering method to stabilise the global climate, and that the submarine storage and processing concept I have presented here should be the most economical and technically feasible approach. Here is a summary.Considering how carbon can best be managed in a form that is made commercially sustainable by its value as saleable commodities, my concept is that temporary deep ocean storage of algae presents a method able to make emission reduction irrelevant to climate stabilisation, by 

RE: _[geo]_Does_CDR_provide_“moral_hazard”_for_av oiding_deep_decarbonization_of_our_economy?_|_Everything_and _the_Carbon_Sink

[markcapron]

Robert,Great arguments for countries to adopt simple carbon fees on both domestic fossil fuels and imports of fuel and the carbon footprint of imported goods.Minor edit - We don't want to stash whole algae at the bottom of the ocean in plastic bags. At full scale, the algae would also be storing over 10 times the global production of fertilizer nitrogen (ammonia and nitrite) plus similar proportions of other nutrients needed to keep growing algae. Better to separate the carbon and the nutrients out of the algae. Use some carbon to replace fossil fuels. Store some carbon. Recover all the nutrients to grow more algae. For quick high-volume carbon storage, it is hard to beat storing CO2-hydrate in plastic bags on the seafloor. During the few thousand year life of the appropriate geosynthetic membranes, we react the CO2 with silicate minerals for more permanent storage or recover the carbon for other uses.MarkMark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: Re:_[geo]_Does_CDR_provide_“moral_hazard”_for_av
oiding_deep_decarbonization_of_our_economy?_|_Everything_and
_the_Carbon_Sink
From: "'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering"
geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Date: Sat, November 01, 2014 11:45 pm
To: "gh...@sbcglobal.net" gh...@sbcglobal.net,  geoengineering
geoengineering@googlegroups.com

The 'decarbonisation' theme discussed by Noah Deich has become a central concept in advocacy for emission reduction, but in my view it is not a good way to understand the CDR agenda. And the 'moral hazard' of CDR can more usefully be framed as a moral opportunity.The central problem of global warming is summarized in the McKibben Stock Price Problem (link). This is the fact, as noted by leading climate scientist Bill McKibben, that the stock prices of leading energy companies all factor in plans to move enough carbon from the crust to the atmosphere to cook the planet, without any remediation strategy. This is not possible, because the business as usual scenario would lead the world economy to collapse before the ecosystems collapse.Climate stability is a prerequisite for economic stability. The solutions to deliver climate stability are either to either move less carbon into the air (reduce emissions) or stabilise it once it is moved (Carbon Dioxide Removal). Current plans to move carbon without stabilising it are not possible due to the constraints of physics. And Solar Radiation Management is more an emergency tourniquet than a climate solution.Reducing emissions is the primary focus of global warming politics, supporting the premise of decarbonisation of the economy. But emission reduction faces massive, apparently insurmountable, problems, seen in the steady 2.5 ppm per decadeacceleration of the CO2 emission increase rate. The economic incentives to burn coal and gas and oil are more powerful than the political incentives to switch to sustainable energy. And in any case, emission reduction still assumes ongoing increase in CO2 level in the air. Ongoing increase should be unacceptable, because we need to drive CO2 levels down through negative emissions. Political agreements around emission targets are useless, essentially serving as a cover for failure of will and vision. The political targets of ongoing warming build in massive danger of phase shift from the stable Holocene climate pattern that has prevailed for the ten thousand years of the growth of human civilization on our planet. The implication is that there must be a technological focus on CDR, or we cook. An end to Holocene stability is an unacceptable risk with a planetary population of ten billion people, given the likelihood it brings of conflict and collapse of civilization and loss of biodiversity.In London in 1850, the problem of cholera was solved by pumping sewage out of the city. Global warming is like a cholera epidemic for the twenty first century. We need new sanitarians to work out how to pump carbon out of the air to solve the problem of global warming. Funding that process means establishing economic and scalable methods to convert the harmful extra CO2 into useful forms. That means finding practical commercial uses for more than ten billion tonnes of carbon every year. The only way to do that, in my view, is to apply solar and ocean energy to grow algae on industrial scale.This call to focus on algae as a useful form of carbon requires understanding of the distinction between carbon storage and carbon utilization. Storing CO2 through geosequestration is not an economic contribution to stopping global warming. Carbon stored as CO2 has no value, except to help pump up more fossil fuels. But if CO2 is converted to algae, and the algae is then held in large fabric bags at the bottom of the sea, we have an enduring resource, a carbon bank. The ocean is a perpetual motion machine driven by earth’s orbital dynamics. 1.3 billion cubic kilometers (teralitres) of water move up and down by about half a meter 

RE: [geo] ABO Leads Effort to Get EPA to Recognize Carbon Capture and Utilization

[markcapron]

Robert,You should pass your message to the leading Climate CoLab teams for "U.S. Carbon Price." Reconciling paradigms on a global scale is a different perspective on the "free market to include external costs" effort.The carbon reuse industry also addresses the economics of pulling the legacy CO2 out of the air. Our approach has been to first undercut the cost of fossil fuel production with an assist from CO2 storage payments. Then raise the price of fuels to fund continued CO2 storage. With sufficient CO2 reuse to storage products (does not need to be Ocean Forests producing the products), no need to raise fuel prices.MarkMark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: Re: [geo] ABO Leads Effort to Get EPA to Recognize Carbon
Capture and Utilization
From: "'Robert Tulip' via geoengineering"
geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Date: Fri, October 24, 2014 10:45 pm
To: "c...@cornell.edu" c...@cornell.edu,  geoengineering
geoengineering@googlegroups.com

Dear CharlesThank you for this CCU concept. I totally agree with the utilization theme as a superior framework compared to carbon sequestration or storage. We can utilize carbon as fuel, food, feed, fertilizer and fabric. We need to make use of these productive forms of carbon in order to fund activity to stabilize the climate.Now I want to raise a controversial claim:We can utilize more carbon than we emit. That means emission reduction is not necessary to reverse global warming.We can utilize carbon as fabric including for materials construction for roads and buildings.We can utilize carbon as animal feed and fertilizer to improve global food security and nutrition. We can utilize carbon as fuel to address energy security. If abundant useful carbon-based products could be made economically, the demand could be more than the ten billion tonnes of carbon that humans add to the air every year.If we use more carbon than we emit, the amount of carbon in the air will go down. Is it possible?Yes. Ocean based industrial algae production can use energy from wave, wind, tide, current and sun as low cost pumping, transport and heating sources, and can use abundant nutrient and carbon dioxide. Scaling algae production up to 2% of the world ocean with efficient energy and materials could be enough to reduce the amount of carbon in the air and sea, with a profitable system that will pay for its own expansion at scale, while also improving biodiversity through reduction of water temperature and acidity. My most recent presentation on this topic, building on my MIT Climate Collaboration Finalist concepthttp://climatecolab.org/community/-/blogs/finalist-results-announced- and material from Ocean Foresters http://oceanforesters.org/ was delivered at the Australian National University earlier this year. Here are the slides from my presentation, Ocean Forest Cultivation in Pacific Island Countries - Environmental and Economic Benefits and Strategies,  Using carbon can change the climate stabilization paradigm away from the emission reduction model towards a situation where the main issue is the balance between emissions and reuse, using technology to manage carbon stock and flow. Transforming carbon into useful products could build to a larger scale than total emissions. Carbon can be mined from air and sea to produce valuable marketable commodities. This approach means that the fossil fuel economy can become compatible with a stable climate. Like any other product, carbon now seen as waste can be turned into a resource for recycling. Further, that means it can be fine to dig up coal as long as we then turn the produced CO2 into something useful, such as roads or buildings. This objective presents a basis for alliance between efforts to stabilize the climate and the fossil fuel industry.We do not address sewerage by reducing defecation. Nor should we address carbon pollution by reducing emissions. That is like trying to stop the tide. We now have two competing old paradigms, both of which are unscientific. The fossil fuel paradigm ignores global warming. The emission reduction paradigm ignores the economy. We need to put these paradigms together to get a new one, through an economic method to remove carbon from the air and sea. The requirement to achieve this new paradigm is a method to transform carbon dioxide and waste methane into useable products at a scale sufficient to reduce carbon level in the air. The best, and possibly only, way to turn waste carbon into useful products is to mimic how hydrocarbons occurred in nature. Algae falling to the bottom of shallow seas was heated and pressurised over millions of years, gradually converting carbon dioxide into hydrocarbons. Industrial technology can replicate this process in ways that are rapid and commercially profitable. Robert TulipResources and Energy SectionAustralian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade  From: Charles H. Greene c...@cornell.edu To: geoengineering 

RE: [geo] Natural olivine beaches

[markcapron]

Greg,Might a paleoclimate researcher know or find a technique for dating the rate of carbon sink based on sediment cores from olivene beaches? Perhaps relating the sink rate to past air/ocean CO2 concentrations?MarkMark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: Re: [geo] Natural olivine beaches
From: Greg Rau gh...@sbcglobal.net
Date: Tue, September 30, 2014 8:19 pm
To: "andrew.lock...@gmail.com" andrew.lock...@gmail.com, 
geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com

Agree that the silicate mineral sand idea needs testing. I'd first start in the lab with a flask of freshly ground olivine in chemically well characterized, sterile seawater. I would then put this on a shaker table in the dark and let the sand and water gently slosh back and forth for a few days and then measure the SW alkalinity and DIC again. this would give you and idea of the efficacy and kinetics under ideal conditions. Measuring this in a beach setting would be trickier, but possible. My guess is that there are synergies with sediment respiration/microbes that hasten silicate weathering. Add in some fresh sediment to the above flask and see what happens.Greg  From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com  Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 11:28 AM Subject: [geo] Natural olivine beaches   Hi The proposal for olivine weathering on beaches seems to pass a common sense test.  However, there's been a lack of detailed discussion about the occurrence and function of natural olivine beaches, as far as I'm aware.  There are a lot of beaches in the world. Olivine is pretty common. How much of a sink is natural beach chemical and mechanical weathering of olivine?  It should be easy to find at least one location where there's massive quantities of olivine sand, and take detailed measurements on the carbon sink.  I know there's at least one such beach in the literature, but I can't recall discussions of others, nor detailed quantitative research on erosion and sequestration rates at this site  Can someone enlighten me as to why this has seemingly been overlooked for detailed study?  A --  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.

[geo] U.S. DOE RFI on large carbon capture demonstrations

[markcapron]

Request
for InformationTesting
Advanced Post-Combustion Carbon Dioxide Capture Technologies at a Large Pilot ScaleThe purpose of this request for information (RFI)
is to seek information on advanced post-combustion carbon capture technologies
that are ready to be tested on actual coal-derived flue gas at the large pilot scale
(herein defined as 10MWe net or greater prior to installing carbon dioxide
capture and compression to 2,200 psig).https://www.fedconnect.net/fedconnect/?doc=DE-FOA-0001190agency=DOEMark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: [geo] Fwd: Climate Engineering News Review for week 36 of 2014
From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, September 02, 2014 2:45 am
To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com

-- Forwarded message --From: "i...@climate-engineering.eu" i...@climate-engineering.eu Date: 2 Sep 2014 09:15Subject: Climate Engineering News Review for week 36 of 2014To: andrew.lock...@gmail.comCc:Dear Climate Engineering Group, please find below our weekly climate engineering news review. You can find daily updated climate engineering news on our news portal www.climate-engineering.eu/news.html. Thank you The Climate Engineering Editors  Climate Engineering News Review for Week 36 of 2014  Upcoming Events and Deadlines   05.-07.09.2014, Lecture: Human Rights Considerations and Climate Geoengineering, Yale University, USA 09.09.2014, Symposium: How might Climate Engineering Influence Precipitation Patterns and Soil Moisture?, Oslo/Norway 24.09.2014, Public parlamentary session in Germany: Climate Engineering - Useful Instrument or Dead End, Berlin/Germany 04.11.2014, Workshops: Mainstreaming Biodiversity Workshop: Geo-engineering impacts on biodiversity, Bristol/UK 15.-19.12.2014, Conference: AGU Fall Meeting, San Francisco/USA 04.-08.01.2015, Conference: 20th Conference on Planned and Inadvertent Weather Modification, Phoenix, Arizona/USANew Publications   Jack Stilgoe (2014): Responsible innovation in geoengineering. Experiment earth. Routledge.Selected Media Responses   Environmental Research Web: ‘Moderate’ geoengineering could help temperature in all areas WGC Blog: Methane, volcanoes, and the end of the world RTCC: Why we need to stop talking about ‘geoengineering’ Ecologist: Geoengineering - the 'declaration' that never was may cause real harm Sourcable: The World’s First Framework for Climate Engineering Motherboard: The Climate Scientist Who Pioneered Geoengineering Fears It's About to Blow Up   To unsubscribe please send short message to i...@climate-engineering.eu or use the web interface.   --  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.

RE: [geo] Re: what's new on cost estimates for DAC CDR?

[markcapron]

Ocean Forests lack CO2 capture and store capacity? See "Secure Seafloor Container CO2 Storage" co-authored with Royal Fellow Dr. R. Kerry Rowe at:http://oceanforesters.org/uploads/Secure_Seafloor_Container_CO2_Storage_copy__Oceans_13.pdf. No real capacity limit on the storage of contained CO2 hydrate. 2.1 trillion tons of CO2 stored as hydrate (about 4x the volume of liquid CO2) would raise global sea level only 24 millimeters. In-ocean trials are needed to confirm a design which is easily repaired without significant loss, should the container be assaulted by sea creatures or seafloor disturbance. Relative to Olivine, the filling containers with liquid CO2 and seawater (minutes). Without mixing, hydrate formation may take a few years. However, the geosynthetic hydrate containers may require repairs every few 1,000 years. The ideal solution might be to quickly store CO2 any of numerous relatively quick ways with less than 1% loss per 1,000 years and then react it with Olivine in the long-term.The rate of capture is limited, but only because the inexpensively captured bio-CO2 volume is tied to the demand for the co-produced energy. That is why our strategy is to produce energy as inexpensively as possible. If our capture is so inexpensive we have leftover carbon price money, we subsidize the the energy costs until fossil fuels are left in the ground as too expensive. At which point there is no carbon price income from fossil fuel users. So we raise energy prices to subsidize removing legacy CO2 from air. We would keep swinging our energy prices to prevent the fossil fuel industry from restarting.We are planning a new paper with hydrothermal processes for the "biomass-to-energy while recovering the nutrients" component. Hydrothermal appears to be more capital intensive but it extracts nearly all the energy (carbon) while returning nearly all the nutrients. About half the energy is in a bio-crude oil, the other half is a 60:40 CH4:CO2 biogas. Therefore nearly twice the energy yield with about the same bio-CO2 yield as for anaerobic digestion.MarkMark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: RE: [geo] Re: what's new on cost estimates for DAC CDR?
From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com
Date: Sat, August 30, 2014 2:13 am
To: "markcap...@podenergy.org" markcap...@podenergy.org,
vivian.sc...@ed.ac.uk
Cc: Fred Zimmerman geoengineerin...@gmail.com,
charlie.zen...@gmail.com,  geoengineering@googlegroups.com

Vivian Scott also produced a comparison. Maybe he'll send it. Afforestation and olivine are cheap, but only olivine has capacity. DAC is expensive but capable. A  On 30 Aug 2014 01:56, markcap...@podenergy.org wrote: Charlie,You mean a table or something like an updated McLaren chart,http://oceanforesters.org/References.html. The chart is at the bottom of the page. Duncan McLaren has produced this chart for a few years. His "2012 A comparative assessment..." (link near top of the same page) was published in the same journal with "Negative carbon via Ocean Afforestation." Mark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org    Original Message  Subject: [geo] Re: what's new on cost estimates for DAC CDR? From: Charlie Zender charlie.zen...@gmail.com Date: Thu, August 28, 2014 1:51 pm To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  Fred,It would be a great contribution if you synthsized your review into a table of DAC CDR cost estimates which we could all view.Best,Charlie On Monday, August 25, 2014 10:17:58 PM UTC-7, Fred Zimmerman wrote:Hi --I am updating a literature review on cost estimates for DAC CDR and I am wondering what has changed both empirically and analytically since the flurry of papers in 2011-2013 with APS, House, Keith, Lackner et al. Fred ZimmermanAnn Arbor, Michigan, USA"a fox, not a hedgehog" -- Isaiah Berlin--  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 

RE: [geo] Re: what's new on cost estimates for DAC CDR?

[markcapron]

Charlie,You mean a table or something like an updated McLaren chart,http://oceanforesters.org/References.html. The chart is at the bottom of the page. Duncan McLaren has produced this chart for a few years. His "2012 A comparative assessment..." (link near top of the same page) was published in the same journal with "Negative carbon via Ocean Afforestation."Mark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: [geo] Re: what's new on cost estimates for DAC CDR?
From: Charlie Zender charlie.zen...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, August 28, 2014 1:51 pm
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com

Fred,It would be a great contribution if you synthsized your review into a table of DAC CDR cost estimates which we could all view.Best,CharlieOn Monday, August 25, 2014 10:17:58 PM UTC-7, Fred Zimmerman wrote:Hi --I am updating a literature review on cost estimates for DAC CDR and I am wondering what has changed both empirically and analytically since the flurry of papers in 2011-2013 with APS, House, Keith, Lackner et al. Fred ZimmermanAnn Arbor, Michigan, USA"a fox, not a hedgehog" -- Isaiah Berlin--  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.

RE: [geo] what's new on cost estimates for DAC CDR?

[markcapron]

Fred,Have you included Dr. Antoine N'Yeurt et.al 2012 paper and associated files "Negative carbon via Ocean Afforestation"? We have since published "Seafloor Container CO2 Storage". Author's versions are available at the bottom ofhttp://oceanforesters.org/Ocean_Forests.html. More graphics and references athttp://oceanforesters.org/References.html.We are projecting $16/ton of CO2 to move the CO2 from the atmosphere to secure storage as a contained hydrate. We figure our "Readiness" on the McLaren chart is a little better than "2" and our capacity exceeds the global requirement.Mark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: [geo] what's new on cost estimates for DAC CDR?
From: Fred Zimmerman wfzimmer...@gmail.com
Date: Mon, August 25, 2014 10:50 am
To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com

Hi --I am updating a literature review on cost estimates for DAC CDR and I am wondering what has changed both empirically and analytically since the flurry of papers in 2011-2013 with APS, House, Keith, Lackner et al. Fred ZimmermanAnn Arbor, Michigan, USA"a fox, not a hedgehog" -- Isaiah Berlin   --  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.

RE: [geo] Investigating afforestation and bioenergy CCS as climate change mitigation strategies - ERL - IOP

[markcapron]

Florian,Echo Greg with your work on terrestrial afforestation/BECCS. Would you like to expand into marine afforestation like athttp://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1300701/planId/1307120. Ocean Forests also have a BECCS component when the biomethane combustion exhaust is captured, perhaps as Greg suggests. Mark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: Re: [geo] Investigating afforestation and bioenergy CCS as
climate change mitigation strategies - ERL - IOP
From: Greg Rau gh...@sbcglobal.net
Date: Sat, July 12, 2014 10:12 am
To: "florian.humpenoe...@pik-potsdam.de"
florian.humpenoe...@pik-potsdam.de
Cc: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com

Florian,Congrats on your recent afforestation/BECCS paper. Important overview of the issues. If cost and questionable C storage space are holding back the BECCS strategy, you ought to consider cheaper (and more beneficial) ways of capturing and storing the CO2,the AWL approach being one example:http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/10/planId/1304174http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es102671xHere, for at least half the cost of CCS you can spontaneously convert the BE CO2 and store as ocean alkalinity where it can also help offset the ocean acidification problem.OK, this is only relevant in coastal areas, but those sites will be the low hanging fruit, cost wise, and hence should be first in line for RD and applications if you are serious about storing CO2 from BE.Another angle is marine biomass for BE, why compete with land food and fiber production (and water use) when you've got more than a few GT of biomass out there on the other 70% of the Earth's surface?Anyway, under the circumstances, time to think outside the box.Regards,Greg Rau  From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com  Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2014 7:10 AM Subject: [geo] Investigating afforestation and bioenergy CCS as climate change mitigation strategies - ERL - IOP   Open access  http://m.iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/9/6/064029/ Environmental Research LettersVolume 9, Number 6 Florian Humpenöderet al2014Environ. Res. Lett.064029doi:10.1088/1748-9326/9/6/064029 Investigating afforestation and bioenergy CCS as climate change mitigation  Abstract The land-use sector can contribute to climate change mitigation not only by reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but also by increasing carbon uptake from the atmosphere and thereby creating negative CO2emissions. In this paper, we investigate two land-based climate change mitigation strategies for carbon removal: (1) afforestation and (2) bioenergy in combination with carbon capture and storage technology (bioenergy CCS). In our approach, a global tax on GHG emissions aimed at ambitious climate change mitigation incentivizes land-based mitigation by penalizing positive and rewarding negative CO2emissions from the land-use system. We analyze afforestation and bioenergy CCS as standalone and combined mitigation strategies. We find that afforestation is a cost-efficient strategy for carbon removal at relatively low carbon prices, while bioenergy CCS becomes competitive only at higher prices. According to our results, cumulative carbon removal due to afforestation and bioenergy CCS is similar at the end of 21st century (600–700 GtCO2), while land-demand for afforestation is much higher compared to bioenergy CCS. In the combined setting, we identify competition for land, but the impact on the mitigation potential (1000 GtCO2) is partially alleviated by productivity increases in the agricultural sector. Moreover, our results indicate that early-century afforestation presumably will not negatively impact carbon removal due to bioenergy CCS in the second half of the 21st century. A sensitivity analysis shows that land-based mitigation is very sensitive to different levels of GHG taxes. Besides that, the mitigation potential of bioenergy CCS highly depends on the development of future bioenergy yields and the availability of geological carbon storage, while for afforestation projects the length of the crediting period is crucial. --  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 

RE: [geo] Negative CO2 Emissions: Benson weighs in

[markcapron]

Ron  Michael,Yes. Do biochar to the max. The world could do more biochar if some developing places didn't use it for cooking fuel. So find a replacement cooking fuel, such as biomethane.There is a short description of Ocean Forests athttp://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1300701.Mark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


--- Original Message 
Subject: Re: [geo] Negative CO2 Emissions: Benson weighs in
From: Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, July 09, 2014 3:15 pm
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Cc: voglerl...@gmail.com, gh...@sbcglobal.net, smben...@stanford.edu

Ron et. al.,Concerning your first point, my view of biochar is that it is a complete form of a bioenergy and carbon sequestration method. Technologically speaking, Biochar is a form of BECS. Yet, Biochar is not the only form of BECS. Developing vast (global scale) coordinated biochar programs, using an extremely wide spectrum of local/regional flora for biomass, has been and most likely always will be, an obvious and highly significant limiting factor for terrestrial BECS (TBECS) at the economic/biomass supply levels. Biochar and TBECS do, in fact, share the obvious and substantial limiting factor of being resistant to standardization (of production) thus both Biochar and TBECS have significantchallengesin achieving the vast scale needed to substantially mitigate global warming, at this time of our current STEMdevelopmentlevel.The IPCC WG3 was clear and cogent on that point.I fail to see the link between mariculture (which has existed for thousands of years) and (RL)"I see the (non-solvable?) problem being that of insurance/indemnification.". The Marine BECS operations would be strongly focused upon...wellBECS within highly spatially/biologically isolated oceanic deserts. How does that relate to a "non-solvable problem...of insurance/indemnification"? Your statement of, "It is not just the risk (MH-What risk?), it is the potential cost of a highly unlikely event, with no way for any insurer to calculate the odds.", is simply not supportable as suchgenuflection to the 'Unknown Unknowns (the Rumsfieldian 'Unk Unks')" would seize up all scientific, political and economic works. Why even get out of bed if the Unk Unks will get you! I simply fail to see even minor environmental "risk" in growing fish and algae in oceanic deserts, even on a vast scale. I am always open to expert level knowledge in the evaluation of risks and benefits. However, IMMHO, Unk Unks should never be given leadership at either the strategic nor tactical levels. Standard marine vessel insurance will meet the needs of a Marine BECS commercial operation.On point: (RL) "2. I have been and continue to be supportive of an ocean biomass resource for biochar.  My limited research says that will be best started as a shore-based activity. That would keep the decisions out of international courts.". The use of the oceanic commons for mariculture needs no international/national permitting and is, in fact, exempted from the IMO restrictions on oceanic GE.. Yet, I do vigorously support the development of intergovernmental treaty protocols, concerning large scale marine BECS operations, which would both protect the commons and champion coordinated production standards and practices. Hopefully, the IMBECS Protocol will be useful to that end.Further, "And there is plenty of coastline - close to the ag soils needing both the biochar and the valuable ocean minor minerals available from this ag-type activity.",coastal (littoral) regions typically already have robust ecosystems which need to be protected from large scale changes in their environmental/nutrient state. Carpeting them with BECS operations would be disruptive to a significant degree on multiple levels. I do support, however, limited use of littoral regions for testing of BECS related STEM and only on a limited and temporary basis. The overwhelming bulk of the marine BECS (MBECS)operations should, by all relative marine STEM standards and in accordance with theprecautionaryprinciple, be limited to the off shore desert (STCZ) regions. Marine transport, using in-house produced carbon negative biofuel, would be highly cost effective in moving MBECS products to market. On point 3: (RL) "At least at first, it still seems best to concentrate on land-based facilities using ocean waters, and international trade. And put the captured carbon where people want it, not where it is a perceived uninsurable risk (likely at higher cost as well).".At the STEM level, land based expansion of BECS, even marine microalgal BECS, is acceptable if one wishes to limit the eventual scale to local/regional markets and support a low profit, extremely marginal, business operation. The multiple difficulties and additional costs associated with the international trade of terrestrial biomass/biochar are, clearly, some of the primary limiting factors for both biochar and TBECS. Again, this is well covered 

RE: [geo] Off topic? Tsunamis caused by AGW

[markcapron]

Andrew,True. The tsunami wall is for stopping the tsunami from hitting shores protected by the wall, not for stopping the subsea landslide.The only sure way to prevent more global warming caused subsea landslides is to reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations below about 1960s levels. That could be done before 2100, if we put substantial effort into Ocean Seaweed Forests.Mark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: RE: [geo] Off topic? Tsunamis caused by AGW
From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com
Date: Sun, June 08, 2014 10:34 am
To: markcap...@podenergy.org
Cc: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com

The volume of these underwater landslides are completely beyond the scale you're discussing. The slide that wiped out doggerland was comparable to the land area of a small country. You can't use sandbags to stop that.  A On 6 Jun 2014 22:22, markcap...@podenergy.org wrote: Andrew,Actually, underwater earthworks may not be that expensive, if you employ the principles of "hydrostatic sand". To make hydrostatic sand you: 1) Place a plastic bag in the water; 2) fill the bag with sand (this may be a hydropneumatic fill); 3. Seal the bag; 4) Pump the water out of the bag. The deeper the bag, the more confining pressure on the sand, more confining pressure makes the sand like concrete. The attache PDF is a summary of a collection of recent provisional patent applications. (They are interrelated with explanations of components distributed in several Concepts The sub-sea sea wall is explained in Concept 3. People haven't been thinking of putting the tsunami barrier out in deeper water. But if we make a sub-sea wall, the tsunami is not as high. A lot of the tsunami will reflect. Suppose a tsunami is 1 meter high in 4,000 meter deep water. It would be 3 m high in 50 m deep water or 8 m high in 1 meter deep water. (Very roughly.) Item 3 shows how to temporarily extend the sub-sea wall above the water surface. MarkMark E. Capron, PE Ventura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org    Original Message  Subject: [geo] Off topic? Tsunamis caused by AGW From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com Date: Thu, June 05, 2014 10:25 am To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com  See attached paper postulating risks from underwater slope failure/slumping caused by AGW in North Sea.  Risk management could be considered adaptation, but the possibility of catastrophic tsunamis (previously 20+m over MSL in Shetland Islands during LIG) suggests it may fall into GE, but obviously not at a global scale.  Underwater earthworks seem impractical on the scale needed, so I'd be interested in any further thoughts or ideas.  A  --  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.

RE: [geo] Mitigate the sea-level rise

[markcapron]

Stephen and Greg,This kind of discussion, a trade-off of (doomed) local environment to preserve some global environment, helps educate people about the need for action. It's useful to check how "doomed" are the local environments. For example does the clay barrier between the Mediterranean Sea and the Sahara extend above sea level everywhere? If there are above-sea gaps in the clay, how much sea level rise before the Sea flows into the gap? Or what combination of sea level rise, high tide, and storm surge starts the flooding of land which is already below sea level (Dead Sea, Salton Sea, California Delta, etc.)?Thoughts on a meter of sea level mitigation via low groundwater tables or low ground:1) We can generate hydropower energy as water flows from high to low. When generating energy, pressure is more important than flow rate because turbine efficiency is so much better above about 50 meters of water head than with lower pressure water. Is the future energy income sufficient to "buy" all the affected and doomed property or pay for the personal desalters Stephen and Greg mention? Should we build solar stills which are so large and high we can recover hydropower energy as the water drains off them?2) It is more difficult to push water into an aquifer than to suck water out. However, advances in directional drilling and hydrofracturing (oil and gas drilling technology) might be helpful for increasing percolation into the aqufer.3) We can maintain gravity flow of water in a pipe even if long distances of the pipe are nearly 10 meters above sea level. That is as long as the pipe inlet is in the sea and the outlet is below sea level. Normally, gases in the water come out of solution and this off-gasing is why every pipe "high point" requires an air release valve. I encountered just this high-point-too-high issue and fixed it with a tiny vacuum pump sucking on the air release valve.MarkStephen's comment:Water runs down hill. If you look at the rock porosity and the depths of the water table below the Sahara you can see that we could store a world-metre of sea water down there. So why does it not flow down of its own accord? Answer because ooze on the sea bed in the oceans surrounding the Sahara has clogged the entrances to all the subterranean passages. All we have to do is some ooze-scraping to clear the blockage. Water below the Sahara is already extremely saline. We would have to provide solar-powered desalination plant for every man, woman, child, camel and goat but that would be much cheaper than building a flood wall round Manhattan let alone all the other coastal cities.I have been working on designs of wave-powered scrapers so we can do it without releasing any carbon from fossil fuel. If we can wash the salt it might be quite valuable.Greg's comment:

  Relatedly, there is an interesting scheme (being tested/built in the Middle East somewhere) that I think goes like this. A natural or artificial marine bay is covered with a high arching cover such that during the day the enclosed space is solar heated and seawater evaporates. During the night the cover naturally cools, freshwater condenses on the inside, trickles down the inside of the cover and is collected to water fields, etc. If water is collected high enough it could be sent inland via gravity/pipe (+- hydroelectric generation?). OK, probably won't stem sea level rise, but might do some good in the meantime, pending GE governance approval. From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Mick West [m...@mickwest.com] Sent: Friday, May 30, 2014 9:16 AM To: celso...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] Mitigate the sea-level rise The world's largest pump does 150,000 gallons a second, and costs around $500 Million, and is only pumping a few feet. http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2009-08/saving-new-orleans-worlds-largest-water-pumpTo offset 1 cm of sea level rise, this pump would have to run for 200 years. http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28360+million+km2+*+1+cm%29+%2F+%2815+gallons%29+seconds+in+yearsOr you could have 200 pumps do 1cm per year, at a baseline cost of $100 Billion. But if you factor in distance and evaporation you'd probably need a lot more. Combined with the likely saturation of the area with only a small fraction of the 1cm worth of water, the destruction of the local ecosystem, and the need for continued pumping - I'd say this idea is a non-starter.   MickOn Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Celsus  celso...@gmail.com wrote:   I posted the following a few years ago . I'm putting it out again to see if there's further reactionThe following is so simple and obvious, perhaps it's not so obvious !It's low-tech anduses a large hammer to help crack a very large nut. It will not solvethe problem of sea-level rise, but might mitigate it somewhat. Majornegative side affects are envisaged - more about that later.  The idea is to use brute force to 

RE: [geo] Re: technical potential of ocean bioenergy?

[markcapron]

Michael,Good points. I'll go farther.The vast scale of the oceans and relatively low-energy transport allows us to be less space-efficient than terrestrial systems. This means we do not need mono-cultures. We can have "forests" instead of "farms." Ocean Forests can be "restorative" development in terms of promoting species diversity.Some Ocean Foresters are primarily Marine Agronomists. MarineAgronomy.org focuses on food production and nutrient remediation (preventing ocean dead zones). Food is a much higher value product that energy ($/kg of seaweed or shellfish or whatever). So we are starting with food, mostly by spreading seaweed "farming" businesses which are already flourishing in Asia.However, energy production is 100% sustainable because the nutrients to grow seaweed move only a few kilometers. Food production moves nutrients 100s or 1,000s of kilometers and is therefore more limited at large scale. And energy production requires 100 times the biomass of food production. So as we scale up seaweed production past the global demand for food, we can divert a few % of biomass to make 9 billion people as well fed as they can tolerate a seafood diet.MarkMark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: [geo] Re: technical potential of ocean bioenergy?
From: Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, April 29, 2014 2:15 pm
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Cc: Greg Rau gh...@sbcglobal.net

Hi Fred,Beyond the few papers/projects/concepts which have been mentioned in this forum (Trent/Capron/Bhaskar/Tulip), there seems to be no further work (that I've found) which specifically attempts to work out the details of oceanic based cultivation on a vast scale. To gain some understanding of the biomass cultivation potential of the marine environment one has to look within the current land based algal cultivation industry and transpose that work into/onto the marine environment. Many of the environmental/production limiting factors found within the land based algal cultivation industry (or BECCS in general) become moot when transposed onto the marine environment. Further, when considering the marine environment one needs to understand that there are calm oceanic deserts (of vast scale) which are conducive to the cultivation of a multitude of species (on a vast scale). Also, the design and construction of the production 'rafts' are well within the marine engineering arts and thus the physical barriers to production on a vast scale is minimal.Invention is often based upon the transposition of patterns found within one field into another field. Regrettably, until further work is funded/developed, you will need to use your inventive side to understand the potential of the marine environment as a fuel/food/feed/fertilizer/freshwater/polymer (etc.) source.Best,MichaelOn Monday, April 21, 2014 6:41:06 AM UTC-7, Fred Zimmerman wrote:I have just been skimming through the IPCC AR5 appendix on bioenergy and I see helpful estimates of technical bioenergy potential for land but don't see any estimates of technical potential for marine bioenergy -- are there any good papers on that topic? FredFred ZimmermanAnn Arbor, Michigan, USA"a fox, not a hedgehog" -- Isaiah Berlin--  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.

Funding for RE: [geo] Carbon dioxide efficiency of terrestrial enhanced weathering - Environmental Science Technology (ACS Publications)

[markcapron]

Find a beach community desiring central government funds to replenish their beaches.

Use the study Andrew found when asking thecommunity leaders to petition their central government representatives to fund a silicate mineral beach replenishment research experiment with partial U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) funding. DOE-FOA-0001037 iscurrently limited to the deep-earth "Geologic" storage favored by oil companies. If nothing else, talking about beaches and funding to address ocean acidification is a great community education opportunity.

Beach replenishment is generally funded through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It is in vogue on the U.S. East and Gulf Coasts as an adaptation to sea level rise and extreme weather. Politicians like to 'kill two birds with one chunk of taxpayer money'almost as much as 'bringing home the bacon.'
Mark

Mark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org



 Original Message Subject: [geo] Carbon dioxide efficiency of terrestrial enhancedweathering - Environmental Science  Technology (ACS Publications)From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.comDate: Wed, March 12, 2014 2:40 amTo: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es4052022
Terrestrial enhanced weathering, the spreading of ultramafic silicate rock flour to enhance natural weathering rates, has been suggested as part of a strategy to reduce global atmospheric CO2 levels. We budget potential CO2 sequestration against associated CO2 emissions to assess the net CO2 removal of terrestrial enhanced weathering. We combine global spatial datasets of potential source rocks, transport networks and application areas with associated CO2 emissions in an optimistic and a pessimistic scenario. The results show that the choice of source rocks and material comminution technique dominate the CO2-efficiency of enhanced weathering. CO2 emissions from transport amount on average 0.5-3% of potentially sequestered CO2. The emissions of material mining and application are negligible. After accounting for all emissions, 0.5-1.0 t CO2 can be sequestered on average per tonne of rock, translating into a unit cost of 1.6 to 9.9 GJ per tonne CO2 sequestered by enhanced weathering. However, to control or reduce the atmospheric CO2 concentrations substantially with enhanced weathering would require very large amounts of rock. Before enhanced weathering could be applied at large scales, more research is needed to assess weathering rates, potential side effects, social acceptability, and mechanisms of governance.
-- 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.

RE: [geo] Good luck adapting to climate change

[markcapron]

Greg,At least people are starting to estimate the cost of repair and disruption. I've only been casually watching but haven't seen lost opportunity costs. For example, uncertainty will prevent orchard farming because the odds of a tree killing drought or heat wave are less well known then in the past. There are many projects and forms of infrastructure which are prevented by uncertainty. People and businesses hate to commit to anything if they don't know what will happen.Seawalls are a sure bet. Orchards are not.Mark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: [geo] Good luck adapting to climate change
From: Greg Rau gh...@sbcglobal.net
Date: Fri, March 07, 2014 9:54 am
To: Geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com

Those advocating that we can be resilient to or adapt our way out of climate change might want to read this article:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/06/climate-change-effects_n_4914116.htmlQuote:"A central theme of the report is that vulnerabilities and impacts are issues beyond physical infrastructures themselves. The concern is with the value of services provided by infrastructures, where the true consequences of impacts and disruptions involve not only the costs associated with the cleanup, repair, and/or replacement of affected infrastructures but also economic, social, and environmental effects as supply chains are disrupted, economic activities are suspended, and/or social well-being is threatened."The article ends with this familiar plea:"What we really need is some innovative thinking about financing."How about financing prevention? Wouldn't it be (have been) a whole lot cheaper and easier to avoid AGW in the first place? Meantime, anyone up for some real geoengineering - starting a seawall construction business?Greg  --  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.

RE: [geo] Tilting at the DE-FOA-0001037 windmill to increase carbon storage options

[markcapron]

Michael,Yes. Harvard's Kurt Zenz House and Daniel P. Schrag were suggesting injection of liquid CO2 a 100 or so meters into seafloor sediments with the seafloor below about 3,000 meters deep back around 2006. If you inject too deep in the sediment, the warmer liquid CO2 will be less dense than ambient seawater. They were looking for coarse sediments (or fractured rock) overlain by a 100 meters of impermeable sediments. This could work, but they would need to prevent having the outward flow of liquid CO2 sealed off by hydrates forming in the coarse sediments.At all depths, seawater saturated with CO2 is more dense than ambient seawater. At all practical depths where they form (below about 500 meters), CO2-hydrates are more dense than ambient seawater, CO2 saturated seawater, and liquid CO2. You still need some thin membrane or sediment (easily repaired) to prevent unsaturated seawater from contacting either the liquid CO2 or the hydrate. The disadvantage is CO2-hydrate has 4x the volume of liquid CO2.{In contrast methane hydrate is much less dense than ambient seawater, hence the buried methane hydrate balls are moving slowly toward the seafloor surface and will rise rapidly, once released from the sediment.}Mark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: Re: [geo] Tilting at the DE-FOA-0001037 windmill to increase
carbon storage options
From: Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com
Date: Tue, February 04, 2014 4:42 pm
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Cc: gh...@sbcglobal.net, "pcfl...@ualberta.ca" pcfl...@ualberta.ca

Mark et.al.,In your work with using thebenthic zone for CO2storage, have you contemplated, or found others suggesting, the injection of liquid CO2 within the Pelagic sediment? Usingan oceanic version of a subsoiler to lay in rows of hydrate tubes (encased in plastic or not) does seem to be a way to protect thefabricated hydrates from any form of disturbance. Isthis burying of the hydrates simplygoing overboard?On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 4:03:29 PM UTC-8, MarkCapron wrote: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%).MarkMark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org    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: "pcf...@ualberta.ca" pcf...@ualberta.ca,  "geoengi...@googlegroups.com" geoengi...@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...@ualberta.ca To: gh...@sbcglobal.net; geoengi...@googlegroups.com  Sent: Tuesday, February 4, 2014 12:03 PM Subject: RE: [geo] Tilting at the DE-FOA-0001037 windmill to increase carbon storage optionsDeep 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 oc

RE: [geo] IPCC: CDR must be considered

[markcapron]

Andrew, Greg, Ron,Any of you game to start a "negcar...@googlegroups.com"?It appears we need to create a firewall (canyon, mountain, ocean, big obstacle) between "geo- and climate-engineering" and CDR, Negative Carbon Technologies, or whatever we call them. We don't want people hearing or seeing mentions of CDR in the same paragraph with climate-engineering (the SRM, clouds, mirrors, OIF, etc.)Better if most mentions of NegCarbon are in paragraphs and articles discussing mitigation or adaptation.On our part, concerning any mention of any CDR, we should do as my mom would say about gossip: "Don't say anything, unless you can say something nice." That might be BECCS with geologic storage of CO2, or biochar, or Ocean Forests with some silicate mineral storage of bio-CO2 and BECCS geologic storage of the combusted bio-CH4.There is plenty of CO2 to go around. "Mistakes" that are discovered after a few billion tons of CO2 are stored with a certain technology will not affect the big picture. We take the Campbell Soup approach. Campbell Soup advertised "Soup is good food" even though that slogan increased sales of competitors canned soups.MarkMark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: Re: [geo] IPCC: CDR must be considered
From: "Ronal W. Larson" rongretlar...@comcast.net
Date: Thu, January 16, 2014 10:29 pm
To: RAU greg gh...@sbcglobal.net
Cc: Geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com

Greg and list:  Three points:a. My interpretation of the Reuters news today (repeated below) was that it was only about CDR. I didn’t catch a statement there (and I’ve looked) about SRM. Gore is primarily talking SRM.  In several books he speaks favorable about biochar (and maybe other CDR - probably afforestation)b. The article by Query had a graphic that apparently came from Climate Central. They need to update it to be in accord with Mr. Gore’s views.c. We have the same continuing problem of not knowing who means what when they use the term “geoengineering.”RonOn Jan 16, 2014, at 9:18 PM, Greg Rau gh...@sbcglobal.net wrote:Al Gore weighs in on the IPCC's new change of heart: Geoengineering'Insane, Utterly Mad and Delusional'.http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2014/01/16Don't sugar coat it, Al. On the other hand Nature will perform her own geoengineering over the next 100kyrsin consuming all of the CO2 we end up emitting. How delusional is it to think we might able to "engineer" a speedup of this process andalleviateat least some of the suffering in the interim? Call me mad, but considering how wellcap and trade, the Kyoto Protocol, and the COP process have gone, it would seem rather reckless to dismiss the possibility/necessity of post-emissions remediation of the CO2 problem without further study.GregFrom:"Rau, Greg" r...@llnl.govTo:"geoengineering@googlegroups.com" geoengineering@googlegroups.comSent:Thursday, January 16, 2014 9:18 AMSubject:[geo]IPCC:CDRmust be consideredThis is apparently from the upcomingIPCCMitigation volume, or something else?CDRer'smount up?Greghttp://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/sucking-co2-from-atmosphere-may-be-only-way-to-meet-climate-goals-un-report-says-20140116-30vnr.htmlSucking CO2 from atmosphere may be only way to meet climate goals, UN report saysPublished: January 16, 2014 - 5:51AMAdvertisementGovernments may have to extract vast amounts of greenhouse gases from the air by 2100 to achieve a target for limiting global warming, backed by trillion-dollar shifts towards clean energy, a draft U.N. report showed on Wednesday.A 29-page summary for policymakers, seen by Reuters, says most scenarios show that rising world emissions will have to plunge by 40 to 70 per cent between 2010 and 2050 to give a good chance of restricting warming to U.N. targets.The report, outlining solutions to climate change, is due to be published in Germany in April after editing by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It will be the third in a series by theIPCC, updating science from 2007.It says the world is doing too little to achieve a goal agreed in 2010 of limiting warming to below 2 degrees abovepre-industrial times, seen as a threshold for dangerous floods, heatwaves, droughts and rising sea levels.To get on track, governments may have to turn ever more to technologies for "carbon dioxide removal" (CDR) from the air, ranging from capturing and burying emissions from coal-fired power plants to planting more forests that use carbon to grow.Most projects for capturing carbon dioxide from power plants are experimental. Among big projects, Saskatchewan Power in Canada is overhauling its Boundary Dam power plant to capture a million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year.And, if the world overshoots concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere consistent with the 2C goal, most scenarios for getting back on track "deployCDRtechnologies to an extent that net global carbon dioxide emissions become negative" before 

[geo] Applying for DE-FOA-0000886? CDR test facility

[markcapron]

CDR or GGR Stakeholders,Are you considering:https://www.fedconnect.net/FedConnect/PublicPages/PublicSearch/Public_Opportunities.aspx?Or maybe readying your technology for testing?Applications for Post-Combustion and Pre-Combustion Carbon Dioxide Capture and Gasification Technologies Testing This Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA) is specifically focused on a cost shared Research and Development effort for operating and maintaining existing test facilities. These test facilities must include the capabilities of providing multiple and simultaneous slipstream testing of bench and pilot scale third party advanced CO2 capture and gasification technologies from diverse fuel sources at commercially relevant process conditions. These Research and Development (RD) test facilities will also promote and conduct the evaluation of advanced technologies to identify and resolve environmental, health and safety, operational, component, and system development issues in collaboration with the technology developer. The identification of cost effective and efficient advanced CO2 capture and gasification technologies will address the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) forecast that domestic and international coal based power generation will remain a critical and primary source of electricity generation through 2035, thereby creating a near term market based opportunity with a global opportunity for the export of U.S. developed technology.MarkMark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.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.

RE: [geo] Fwd: CoLab Talk: Voting is Now Open!

[markcapron]

We (Ocean Foresters) pulled out of the geoengineering category for fear of negative publicity if we won in that category. However, we would appreciate comments (or votes) from members of this forum as we hope to be the "almost as fast as geoengineering" alternative to geoengineering. Also, one of our proposals may be important for tracking methane releases (Arctic or anywhere).

To vote on Ocean Foresters proposals, click on the links below:
Managed seaweed forests completely replace fossil fuels (1 of 5 finalists left in Agriculture and forestry)
http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/18/planId/1303918

Fiji, then Small Island Ocean Afforestation Initiative, then Indian Ocean, … (1 of 3 finalists left in Scaling renewables in major emerging economies)
http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/23/planId/1303924

Replace the diesel, reuse the engines, waste  seaweed biogas (1 of 2 finalists left in Replacing diesel generation)
http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/24/planId/1303929

Methane-sniffing drones with distributed mobile sensors (1 of 3 proposals left in Hydraulic fracturing (fracking))
http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/30/planId/1303603

To learn more about Ocean Foresters, click here (http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/member/-/member/userId/1005309).

Thanks,

Mark Capron, P.E., for the Ocean Foresters

Mark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org



 Original Message Subject: [geo] Fwd: CoLab Talk: Voting is Now Open!From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.comDate: Thu, August 01, 2013 10:20 pmTo: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Poster's note : Many geoengineering and climate ideas to vote on here, including some from regular posters to the geo group.
-- Forwarded message --From: "Laur Fisher" l...@mit.eduDate: Aug 1, 2013 5:21 PMSubject: CoLab Talk: Voting is Now Open!To: andrew.lock...@gmail.comCc: 

 
Voting Is Now Open!
The finalist proposals have been critiqued, revised, and approved by experts from around the world. Now we're looking to you to tell us which should be sent to the top.
From August 1 until August 31, 2013, Climate CoLab members and the public are invited to cast their votes for the proposals that they would most like to see implemented. The proposal with the most votes in each contest will win the Popular Choice Award, and will be invited to present in person or via video to key implementers at our Crowds and Climate Conference on November 6  7 on the MIT campus. Along with the Judges Choice winners, they will also get a chance to win the $10,000 Grand Prize!
How to Vote
Voting is free and easy -- all you need to do is login to the Climate CoLab website and select the "Vote for proposal" button on the proposal page. You are given one vote per contest, and may change your vote as many times as you wish until midnight EDT on August 31. Remember: "Supports" do not become "Votes" -- Finalists, make sure your supporters vote for you! (All voting is subject to the Climate CoLab's Voting rules.)Vote Now!See the list of Finalists eligible for voting.Browse by contest.
Spread the Word
You'll notice that we've extended the voting period from two weeks to one month. This is to give you even more time to discuss, debate, select, and share your favorite proposals with the world.We love to see emails, tweets, posts, pins, and Google +1's about proposals! Include us in the conversation by adding our Twitter and Facebook hashtag #climatevote in your posts and tag us @ClimateCoLab(our Facebook tag has a space between the two words: @Climate CoLab). For more information and guidance about sharing proposals over social media, check out our Social Media Guide.Go to the Climate CoLab now to select your favorite proposal in each contest, and invite your friends, colleagues, readers, fans and followers to vote, too!

Sustainably,
Laur Fisher
Community  Partnerships Manager
MIT Climate CoLab

Vote for climate change solutions!
www.climatecolab.org

Join our community! #climatevote
Twitter  FacebookLinkedIn Pinterest  reddit

The Climate CoLab is a project of the MIT Center for Collective Intelligence.
-- 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 

RE: [geo] Fwd: CoLab Talk: Voting is Now Open!

[markcapron]

Only the Geoengineering category has an elaborate comment by the judges on Geoengineering in general and the 3 finalists. Too big to copy here at http://climatecolab.org/resources/-/wiki/Main/Comments+by+Expert+Reviewers+on+the+Geoengineering+Proposals.

Mark

Mark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org



 Original Message Subject: Re: [geo] Fwd: CoLab Talk: Voting is Now Open!From: Greg Rau gh...@sbcglobal.netDate: Fri, August 02, 2013 8:55 amTo: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com

Now that the floodgates of vote solicitation and self promotion have been breached, I heartily encourage you to consider supporting these final round offerings by the Planet Doctors/Physicians:
http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/10/planId/1304003
http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/20/planId/1303630

Greg







From: "markcap...@podenergy.org" markcap...@podenergy.orgTo: andrew.lock...@gmail.com; geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, August 2, 2013 8:26 AMSubject: RE: [geo] Fwd: CoLab Talk: Voting is Now Open!



We (Ocean Foresters) pulled out of the geoengineering category for fear of negative publicity if we won in that category. However, we would appreciate comments (or votes) from members of this forum as we hope to be the "almost as fast as geoengineering" alternative to geoengineering. Also, one of our proposals may be important for tracking methane releases (Arctic or anywhere).

To vote on Ocean Foresters proposals, click on the links below:
Managed seaweed forests completely replace fossil fuels (1 of 5 finalists left in Agriculture and forestry)
http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/18/planId/1303918

Fiji, then Small Island Ocean Afforestation Initiative, then Indian Ocean, … (1 of 3 finalists left in Scaling renewables in major emerging economies)
http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/23/planId/1303924

Replace the diesel, reuse the engines, waste  seaweed biogas (1 of 2 finalists left in Replacing diesel generation)
http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/24/planId/1303929

Methane-sniffing drones with distributed mobile sensors (1 of 3 proposals left in Hydraulic fracturing (fracking))
http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/30/planId/1303603

To learn more about Ocean Foresters, click here (http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/member/-/member/userId/1005309).

Thanks,

Mark Capron, P.E., for the Ocean Foresters

Mark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org



 Original Message Subject: [geo] Fwd: CoLab Talk: Voting is Now Open!From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.comDate: Thu, August 01, 2013 10:20 pmTo: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Poster's note : Many geoengineering and climate ideas to vote on here, including some from regular posters to the geo group.
-- Forwarded message --From: "Laur Fisher" l...@mit.eduDate: Aug 1, 2013 5:21 PMSubject: CoLab Talk: Voting is Now Open!To: andrew.lock...@gmail.comCc: 

 
Voting Is Now Open!
The finalist proposals have been critiqued, revised, and approved by experts from around the world. Now we're looking to you to tell us which should be sent to the top.
From August 1 until August 31, 2013, Climate CoLab members and the public are invited to cast their votes for the proposals that they would most like to see implemented. The proposal with the most votes in each contest will win the Popular Choice Award, and will be invited to present in person or via video to key implementers at our Crowds and Climate Conference on November 6  7 on the MIT campus. Along with the Judges Choice winners, they will also get a chance to win the $10,000 Grand Prize!
How to Vote
Voting is free and easy -- all you need to do is login to the Climate CoLab website and select the "Vote for proposal" button on the proposal page. You are given one vote per contest, and may change your vote as many times as you wish until midnight EDT on August 31. Remember: "Supports" do not become "Votes" -- Finalists, make sure your supporters vote for you! (All voting is subject to the Climate CoLab's Voting rules.)Vote Now!See the list of Finalists eligible for voting.Browse by contest.
Spread the Word
You'll notice that we've extended the voting period from two weeks to one month. This is to give you even more time to discuss, debate, select, and share your favorite proposals with the world.We love to see emails, tweets, posts, pins, and Google +1's about proposals! Include us in the conversation by adding our Twitter and Facebook hashtag #climatevote in your posts and tag us @ClimateCoLab(our Facebook tag has a space between the two words: @Climate CoLab). For more information and guidance about sharing proposals over social media, check out our Social Media Guide.Go to the Climate CoLab now to select your favorite proposal in each contest, and invite your friends, 

RE: [geo] ESD - Carbon farming in hot, dry coastal areas: an option for climate change mitigation

[markcapron]

Peter  Fred,Whatever works. Some thoughts:1) Perhaps keep sequestering (or longer X) by converting all the wood to biochar.2) Include the costs of supplying nutrients. My understanding is that most of the organic nitrogen is lost to the atmosphere during char production.3) Use a sulfur burner to lower the pH of irrigation water. That will delay the accumulation of salt in the root zone and/or allow irrigation with water that has higher chlorides and other salts.Mark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: RE: [geo] ESD - Carbon farming in hot, dry coastal areas: an
option for climate change mitigation
From: Peter Flynn peter.fl...@ualberta.ca
Date: Wed, July 31, 2013 4:57 pm
To: Fred Zimmerman geoengineerin...@gmail.com,  geoengineering
geoengineering@googlegroups.com

 Fred, I think forest sequestration has less certainty than deep ocean disposal over a 500 year framework. However, cost needs to be factored in as well: if it is an affordable choice, a low cost per ton might offset the lower certainty. Further, suppose future climate makes the forest unsustainable. As long as the wood doesn’t rot, the carbon remains sequestered. If the lack of sustainability is due to low rainfall, the trees might remain. Otherwise, they might be harvested for biomass fuel or sunk in the ocean. Hence I end up in the same place: I would not write this off until I saw a further honing of costs and technological soundness. Best, Peter From: Fred Zimmerman [mailto:geoengineerin...@gmail.com]  Sent: July-31-13 5:35 PMTo: Peter Flynn; geoengineeringSubject: Re: [geo] ESD - Carbon farming in hot, dry coastal areas: an option for climate change mitigation Do forests sequester carbon with the same physical security and long time span as the deep ocean or geologic structures? My impression from what I've read is that forests can come and go on centennial scales. ---Fred ZimmermanGeoengineering IT!  Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technologyGE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080 On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Peter Flynn peter.fl...@ualberta.ca wrote: Fred, Once a forest is mature it is in equilibrium, and no incremental carbon is sequestered. However, the growth to maturity takes carbon out of the atmosphere. Hence this is a one time sequestration effort that lasts as long as the forest. If a forest fire came, and the forest were subsequently regrown, one would still have removed the amount of carbon contained in the forest. (I’m ignoring any secondary effect of char). Hence I think this alternative can be compared to any other one time means of sequestering carbon. Peter Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D. Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of Alberta peter.fl...@ualberta.ca cell: 928 451 4455  From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Fred Zimmerman Sent: July-31-13 1:58 PMTo: Andrew Lockley; geoengineeringSubject: Re: [geo] ESD - Carbon farming in hot, dry coastal areas: an option for climate change mitigation I am trying to understand the CDR logic with regard to biomass "sequestration." Let's say we run these jatorpha carbon farms for 40 years. The resulting "woody biomass" will release its CO2 back into the atmosphere after X years or a big fire, whichever occurs first, in a dry coastal area... Essentially, we would be paying 42-63 EUR/tonne CO2 to push the CO2 X years into the future, where X is not that big a number (compared to oceanic or geologic sequestration). I don't see our descendants thanking us profusely for this particular effort, am I missing something? ---Fred Zimmerman Geoengineering IT! Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technologyGE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080 On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/4/237/2013/esd-4-237-2013.htmlCarbon farming in hot, dry coastal areas: an option for climate change mitigation K.Beckermet et alAbstractWe present a comprehensive, interdisciplinary project which demonstrates that large-scale plantations ofJatropha curcas– if established in hot, dry coastal areas around the world – could capture 17–25 t of carbon dioxide per hectare per year from the atmosphere (over a 20 yr period). Based on recent farming results it is confirmed that theJatropha curcasplant is well adapted to harsh environments and is capable of growing alone or in combination with other tree and shrub species with minimal irrigation in hot deserts where rain occurs only sporadically. Our investigations indicate that there is sufficient unused and marginal land for the widespread cultivation ofJatropha curcasto have a significant impact on atmospheric CO2levels at least for several decades.In a system in which desalinated seawater is used for irrigation and for delivery of mineral 

RE: [geo] Rock weathering: Effective, planetary scale CO2 management

[markcapron]

Greg  Andrew,

In the short term, anoxic conditions should reduce available organic nitrogen because anoxic bacteria convert nitrate to N2 (denitrification). Less oxygen dissolves in warmer water. Low oxygen favors anoxic bacteria who obtain oxygen from nitrate.
The following may answer some of your questions about denitrification in general if not the specific event.
The acceleration of oceanic denitrification during deglacial warming

Eric D. Galbraith, 
Markus Kienast 
 The NICOPP working group members 

Journal name:
Nature Geoscience 02 June 2013 


Over much of the ocean’s surface, productivity and growth are limited by a scarcity of bioavailable nitrogen. Sedimentary δ15N records spanning the last deglaciation suggest marked shifts in the nitrogen cycle during this time, but the quantification of these changes has been hindered by the complexity of nitrogen isotope cycling. Here we present a database of δ15N in sediments throughout the world’s oceans, including 2,329 modern seafloor samples, and 76 timeseries spanning the past 30,000 years. We show that the δ15N values of modern seafloor sediments are consistent with values predicted by our knowledge of nitrogen cycling in the water column. Despite many local deglacial changes, the globally averaged δ15N values of sinking organic matter were similar during the Last Glacial Maximum and Early Holocene. Considering the global isotopic mass balance, we explain these observations with the following deglacial history of nitrogen inventory processes. During the Last Glacial Maximum, the nitrogen cycle was near steady state. During the deglaciation, denitrification in the pelagic water column accelerated. The flooding of continental shelves subsequently increased denitrification at the seafloor, and denitrification reached near steady-state conditions again in the Early Holocene. We use a recent parameterization of seafloor denitrification to estimate a 30–120% increase in benthic denitrification between 15,000 and 8,000 years ago. Based on the similarity of globally averaged δ15N values during the Last Glacial Maximum and Early Holocene, we infer that pelagic denitrification must have increased by a similar amount between the two steady states.

Mark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org



 Original Message Subject: Re: [geo] Rock weathering: Effective, planetary scale CO2managementFrom: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.comDate: Sat, July 27, 2013 2:49 pmTo: gh...@sbcglobal.net, geoengineeringgeoengineering@googlegroups.comPoster's note: Original paper abstract/link below. I find itinteresting how similar this purported event is to AGW. This changeseemingly resulted in partially 'dead oceans' and it would beinteresting to ascertain whether Chicken McNuggets could have survivedin such an environment (if that sounds like nonsense, please refer togroup archives for the relevant threads). I'm keen to hear frompaleo-experts on this lists whether this warming occurred in an iceage or hothouse world, and if an ice age, whether a glacial orinterglacial. The relevance of the preceding period to cryogenicallystored methane (or vanilla carbon in permafrost) is obvious, althoughpotentially very different from modern times, due to continentalconfigurations, vegetation, etc.http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1875.htmlLithium isotope evidence for enhanced weathering during Oceanic Anoxic Event 2Philip A. E. Pogge von Strandmann, Hugh C. Jenkyns  Richard G. WoodfineNature Geoscience (2013) doi:10.1038/ngeo1875Published online 07 July 2013AbstractThe Ocean Anoxic Event 2 (OAE2) about 93.5 million years ago wasmarked by high atmospheric CO2 concentration, rapid global warming andmarine anoxia and euxinia. The event lasted for about 440,000 yearsand led to habitat loss and mass extinction. The marine anoxia isthought to be linked to enhanced biological productivity, but it isunclear what triggered the increased production and what allowed thesubsequent rapid climate recovery. Here we use lithium isotopemeasurements from carbonates spanning the interval including OAE2 toassess the role of silicate weathering. We find the lightest values ofthe Li isotope ratio (δ7Li) during OAE2, indicating high levels ofweathering—and therefore atmospheric CO2 removal—which we attribute toan enhanced hydrological cycle. We use a geochemical model to simulatethe evolution of δ7Li and the Ca, Sr and Os isotope tracers. Oursimulations suggest a scenario in which the eruption of a largeigneous province led to high atmospheric CO2 concentrations and rapidglobal warming, which initiated OAE2. The simulated warming wasaccompanied by a roughly 200,000 year pulse of accelerated weatheringof mafic silicate rocks, which removed CO2 from the atmosphere. Theweathering also delivered nutrients to the oceans that stimulatedprimary productivity. We suggest that this process, together with theburial of organic carbon, allowed the rapid recovery and 

RE: [geo] My big-quick-secure CO2 cleanup proposal is still alive at the MIT geoengineering competition

[markcapron]

Bill,At a quick glance:1. I did not detect your nutrient cycling or nutrient mass balancing. There may be sufficient N, P, K, iron, etc. in deep water below the themocline. But what fraction are you extracting?2. I am a wastewater engineer with some landfill and dairy waste experience. Do you know what fraction of the "sunk or pumped to bottom" carbon is available to anaerobic bacteria? Years ago, we used to think anaerobic bacteria required fresh water and mammal body temperatures to convert biomass to CH4 and CO2. Now we can buy anaerobic bacteria that produce at 5C for use in unheated temperate climate dairy digesters. The bacteria exist or evolve to work in all ocean conditions. The gas production at seafloor temperatures in seawater will be slower, but not that much. Perhaps 80% of volatile solids (aka ash-free biomass) hitting the deep seafloor should be converted to CH4 and CO2 within a decade, if not sooner. Mark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: Re: [geo] My big-quick-secure CO2 cleanup proposal is still
alive at the MIT geoengineering competition
From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, July 12, 2013 7:15 pm
To: william.cal...@gmail.com
Cc: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com

I looked through it in detail earlier. Where's the evidence you can get anywhere near the numbers you need? A  On Jul 13, 2013 4:13 AM, "William H. Calvin" william.cal...@gmail.com wrote:  I seem to be one of the three finalists in this geoengineering competition, despite both judges remaining dubious and dismissive. You can judge for yourself, as it is all at http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/20/planId/1302501  My detailed response is in the Comment following the judges’ report. (Note that the revised proposal you see is not the original proposal the judges saw and from which I quoted in my reply Comment). The 2,000 word limit forced me to boil it down at lot but it has also become, I hope, a bit more understandable for those who haven't been following developments since 1983. A more complete proposal is in my short book, The Great CO2 Cleanup, at the Kindle store or the PDF at http://WilliamCalvin.org/bk16 . I have until Monday to make revisions to the proposal before final judging. Please email suggestions. If you wish to add public comments or “Supporter” endorsements, the Comments tab has a login/register link. I am encouraged to “use on-line social networks” to build support, something I am not good at doing. This competition is my best chance so far to get a wider audience to consider my reframing of the climate problem and its implications for the time scale of needed climate actions. Thanks to many of you for earlier comments, -Bill William H. Calvin, Ph.D.  University of Washington, School of Medicine.   --  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.

Aquaculture sinks? RE: [geo] OIF vs. Agricultural Dead Zones. Irony. Hippocracy.

[markcapron]

If you produce food and carbon sinks with your ocean fertilization experiment is it no longer geoengineering? Or is it mitigation, adaptation, and geoengineering all in one?http://www.thefishsite.com/fishnews/20583/project-aims-to-find-carbon-sinks-in-aquacultureProject Aims to Find Carbon Sinks in Aquaculture25 June 2013SPAIN - Researchers in Spain are finding ways to use aquaculture to create carbon sinks. This is hoped to help prevent climate change.This initiative, developed by the OESA Foundation in collaboration with the Biodiversity Foundation of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Environment, University of Santiago de Compostela and the company Algaenergy, attempt to explore how aquaculture can help mitigate the effects of climate change through the cultivation of fixing carbon dioxide (CO2) in algae and molluscs (mussels, oysters and clams).The project aims to find new carbon sinks in Spanish aquaculture production, of which over 80 per cent is molluscs.Among the objectives of the project is to equip the Spanish aquaculture sector with new tools to calculate the carbon footprint of the cultivated species.During the first half of the year, progress was made in developing a first report on the interactions of climate change and aquaculture.Mark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: Re: [geo] OIF vs. Agricultural Dead Zones.  Irony.  Hippocracy.
From: Oliver Tickell oliver.tick...@kyoto2.org
Date: Wed, June 26, 2013 2:41 am
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Cc: joshic...@gmail.com


Another thing to bear in mind is that by draining wetlands we have 
greatly reduced the flow of iron into the oceans. This is because peat 
produces complex organic acids (eg, humic acid) which dissolve and 
chelate iron - abundant in many rocks - and carry it down to the ocean. 
So we have already "experimented" inadvertently by reducing iron inputs 
to the ocean. And of course this is the most useful form of iron as it 
is in a highly soluble and bio-available form. And we have replaced that 
iron with masses of silt, nitrate and phosphate from stupid kinds of 
agriculture.

Oliver.

On 26/06/2013 09:38, Joshua Jacobs wrote:
 Because of the torrential summer rains, potentially driven by regional 
 climate instability, the largest dead zone ever is predicted in the 
 Mississippi river delta.  Regardless of the climate influences, 
 agricultural run off from "business as usual" economic activity is 
 driving greater environmental impacts than any Ocean Iron 
 Fertilization experiment ever has.  As of yet, I am unaware of any 
 intentional ocean fertilization experiment that has had the impact of 
 a single dead zone of any river anywhere.  The irony being that the 
 worst case scenarios imagined for any small ocean fertilization 
 experiment have yet to compare, by orders of magnitude, to the impact 
 of dead zones created from accepted practices.  The hippocracy being 
 the deriders of ocean fertilization have nothing to say about the dead 
 zones.

 http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/06/130621-dead-zone-biggest-gulf-of-mexico-science-environment/
 -- 
 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.

RE: [geo] New climate article, peripherally related to CDR

[markcapron]

Greg and Ron,

Indeed. Your letter could be more effective listing the known negative carbon processes. Just off the top, likely missed some, not listing the issues:


Ocean Macroalgal Afforestation per N'Yeurt 2012 "Negative carbon via Ocean Afforestation."
Biochar
BECCS
Olivine and other minerals (anyone know the speed of reaction with hot supercritical CO2 in hydrofractured minerals?)
OIF
Lime in the ocean
Managing livestock for more soil carbon in plant roots
Chemical "trees"
Real trees (stored as lumber, artificial fertilizer sustains growth)
Diatoms

Mark E. Capron, PEOxnard, Californiawww.PODenergy.org



 Original Message Subject: Re: [geo] New climate article, peripherally related to CDRFrom: RAU greg gh...@sbcglobal.netDate: Sun, May 05, 2013 10:14 amTo: rongretlar...@comcast.net, GeoengineeringGeoengineering@googlegroups.com



Thanks Ron. I agree that "irreversible" is a poor choice of words given that once we stop emitting fossil CO2, air CO2 and global T (+- inertia) will eventually decline back to pre-industrial levels due to nature's CDR, but in a time frame of say 50 kyrs. The paper does acknowledge that once we stop emitting, air CO2 will start to decline, but the possibility that we might be able to accelerate or augment this air CO2 removal is ignored. I'd say that this might be an opening for a letter to Science from the CDR community perhaps with the title "CO2: Reversible and Avoidable". Anyway, count me in.
-Greg


As for your wording, here's what I'd say, open to further discussion:


Given thereversibilityof air CO2 concentrations and hence CO2-inducedwarming, every increment of reduced or avoidedtemperature increase represents less warming[x, y]that would otherwise persist for manymillenia (Archer et al., 2009).Becausepost-emissions (i.e., air CO2) removalscanreturn global CO2 and temperatures to preindustriallevels, they do have the power toavert additional warming or affect cooling on the same timescale as the emissions reductions or removals themselves.Climate warming tomorrow, this year, thisdecade, or this centuryispredeterminedbybothpastand futureCO2 emissionsas well as the rate of CO2 removal.
The climate benefitsof both emissions reductionsand enhanced CO2 removal [CDR]will thusoccur on the same time scale as the politicaldecisions that lead to CO2 emissions reductions and/or CDR.

One little caveat here is that CDR must operate by not only removing CO2 from air, but also in removing the excess, ocean-absorbed CO2 that will degas back into the air, al la Cao and Caldeira (2010). So the response of air CO2 conc to air CO2 removal alone will be (very) sluggish. This is why I'm a big fan of consuming excess CO2 in the ocean (via base/alkalinity addition). This addresses multiple birds with one stone: ocean--air CO2 flux is reduced or reversed, ocean acidity is neutralized, and the bio effects (on calcification) of ocean acidity are offset by alkalinity addition. Given earth's past successes in mitigating excess global CO2 in this fashion, it would seem unwise to ignore Mother Nature's example, but I'm open to better ideas.
-Greg




From: "rongretlar...@comcast.net" rongretlar...@comcast.netTo: Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.comSent: Sat, May 4, 2013 3:06:48 PMSubject: [geo] New climate article, peripherally related to CDR


List: 1.  I believe this article from last week's Science could be valuable to this list, although there is (close to) zero mention of either side of geoengineering:  Irreversible Does Not Mean Unavoidable; H. Damon Matthews 1 and Susan Solomon 2
 Science 26 April 2013: Vol. 340 no. 6131 pp. 438-439DOI:10.1126/science.1236372 

 2.  I hope someone can help me understand the use of "Irreversible" in the title and, as an example, in the final paragraph:

"Given the irreversibility of CO2-inducedwarming ( 5, 6), every increment of avoidedtemperature increase represents less warmingthat would otherwise persist for manycenturies. Although emissions reductionscannot return global temperatures to preindustriallevels, they do have the power toavert additional warming on the same timescale as the emissions reductions themselves.Climate warming tomorrow, this year, thisdecade, or this century is not predeterminedby past CO2 emissions; it is yet to be determinedby future emissions. The climate benefitsof emissions reductions would thusoccur on the same time scale as the politicaldecisions that lead to the reductions."

 Cites 5 and 6 are:
5. S. Solomon, G. K. Plattner, R. Knutti, P. Friedlingstein,Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106, 1704 (2009).6. H. Matthews, K. Caldeira, Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L04705 (2008).

3. Believing that CDR is real and alive, I would have preferred to see this (my emphasis added) as:

Given the reversibility of CO2-inducedwarming, every increment of avoidedtemperature increase represents less warming [x, y]that would otherwise persist for manycenturies. Because emissions removalscan return global temperatures 

More cloud seeding power? RE: [geo] Power-generating system to transfer heat from Earth to upper troposphere

[markcapron]

Svetlana,
Your concept may combine well with Dr. Salter's cloud seeding ship approach.

Check with some stakeholders in ship propulsion systems - the people making kite sails for cargo ships, California Air Pollution Control Board, cargo ship operators. Have handy some dimensions for the 1MW and 10MW versions.

It should be possible to use lighter-than-air wing foil cross-sections instead of spherical balloons to support the pipe. Wing sections, oriented either horizontally, or vertically, or angled, open the possibility of combining wind-sail power with wind-up-the-pipe power. Cargoship kite-sail designers may be able to design-construct a sail that doubles as a pipe with relatively little material, perhaps only occasionally needing the lighter-than-air feature.

Mark E. Capron, PEOxnard, Californiawww.PODenergy.org



 Original Message Subject: [geo] Power-generating system to transfer heat from Earth toupper troposphereFrom: tkachenko.sv...@gmail.comDate: Thu, May 02, 2013 5:52 pmTo: geoengineering@googlegroups.com


Hi all,

My Bachelor thesis is related to the topic of this group.

It involved modelling a power-generating system located between the Earth surface and the upper layers of the troposphere, an important side effect of operation of which is direct cooling of the atmosphere through those layers, working against global warming directly. Within the model assumptions, the system works.

Please look here:
https://sites.google.com/site/atmospericengines/open 

I want to continue this work as postgraduate research, can anybody please advise how I can find a university and researcher that can be interested in this topic?

During the initial stage, the model has a lot of approximations and simplifications which may be investigated as a part of postgraduate research, for example, phase transitions in negative temperatures, flow viscosity and details of the engineering task of holding the construction weight.

Regards,
Svetlana Thachenko.
-- 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?hl=en.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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[geo] Washington (state) report mentions OIF and carbonate weathering

[markcapron]

Poster's note:

The forwarded study discusses Ocean Iron Fertilization starting page 41.

Ken Caldeira and Greg Rau are mentioned for accelerated carbonate weathering, starting page 45.

Mark


 Original Message Subject: Ocean acidification Washington StateFrom: "John Forster" jfors...@olypen.comDate: Thu, April 11, 2013 8:08 pmTo: marineagron...@umich.edu



Dear Colleagues,

In the context of the Paul Allen prize and our various thoughts on ocean acidification, I think you will find this interesting. Look especially at p 17 -25. I would be very interested in your comments.
[PDF] 
Sweetening the Waters - Washington State Department of Ecology
www.ecy.wa.gov/water/marine/oa/2012report_app9.pdf
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick Viewby E Scigliano - 2012 - Related articlesNov 9, 2012 – Sweetening the Waters. The Feasibility and Efficacy of Measures to Protect. Washington's Marine Resources from Ocean Acidification ...


With best wishes,
John
-- 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?hl=en.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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

RE: [geo]_Adam_Corner_–_On_geoengineering

[markcapron]

Adam put a lot of effort into "Blue sky thinking." It has pros and cons for Plan B. But arguing the need for, the dangers of, the governance, the ethics of Plan Bislower priority than gettingmore countries to adjust their"free" market to favor zeroGHG emissions. If we are running out of time, spend it wisely.

Wouldn'tAdam'seffort have been better spent making a case for some countries to benefit from imposing a unilateral carbon fee (dividend, credit, tax, whatever)? For example, the U.S. can pick up an edge because of its recent abundance of natural gas and a "carbon footprint" tariff on goods imported from China or oil fromSaudi Arabia. Saudi Arabiamight respond by negotiating with the U.S. to collect the dividend (credit, tax, fee, whatever) on all it's oil exports. Economists and philosophers have been looking at geoengineering andrapid planet change as a "prisoners' dilemma" or a "zero sum game" where we need all countries to agree. They might get better results seeking country-specific actions that benefitthat country at the expense of other countries (actions which tilt the "free" market toward zeroing fossil carbon emissions, not business as usual actions).The best action is acarbon credit (tax, fee, dividend, whatever). A country might exploit the possibility of some of their carbon tax (... whatever) funding unilateral research on geoengineering to influence other countries to start their own carbon whatever.

Both pro- and con- geoengineering might jump into the resulting arguments between the International Free Trade crowd and the International Solve Rapid Planet Change crowd.

Let's introduce some "Lincoln" and "Schindler's List" into our efforts. Both are movies where the hero compromises, swindles, and bribes to save current and futurelives.

Mark E. Capron, PEOxnard, Californiawww.PODenergy.org



 Original Message Subject: [geo]_Adam_Corner_–_On_geoengineeringFrom: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.comDate: Fri, April 05, 2013 1:14 amTo: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com
http://www.aeonmagazine.com/nature-and-cosmos/adam-corner-geoengineering-climate-change/
Blue sky thinking
Geoengineers are would-be deities who dream of mastering the heavens. But are humans the ones who are out of control?
byAdam Corner - a research associate in psychology at Cardiff University. His latest book isPromoting Sustainable Behaviour: A Practical Guide to What Works(2012).
At a small conference in Germany last May, I found myself chuckling at the inability of the meeting organisers to control the room’s electronic blinds. It’s always fun when automated technology gets the better of its human masters, but this particular malfunction had a surreal pertinence. Here was a room full of geoengineering experts, debating technologies to control the climate, all the while failing to keep the early summer sun’s rays away from their PowerPoint presentations. As the blinds clicked and whirred in the background, opening and closing at will, I asked myself: are we really ready to take control of the global thermostat?Geoengineering, the idea of using large-scale technologies to manipulate the Earth’s temperature in response to climate change, sounds like the premise of a science fiction novel. Nevertheless, it is migrating to the infinitely more unsettling realm of science policy. The notion of a direct intervention in the climate system — by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, or reflecting a small amount of sunlight back out into space — is slowly gaining currency as a ‘Plan B’. The political subtext for all this is the desperation that now permeates behind-the-scenes discourse about climate change. Despite decades of rhetoric about saving the planet, and determined but mostly ineffectual campaigns from civil society, global emissions of carbon dioxide continue to rise.Officially, climate policy is all about energy efficiency, renewables and nuclear power. Officially, the target of keeping global temperatures within two degrees of the pre-industrial revolution average is still in our sights. But the voices whispering that we might have left it too late are no longer automatically dismissed as heretical. Wouldn’t it be better, they ask, to have at least considered some other options — in case things get really bad?This is the context in which various scary, implausible or simply bizarre proposals are being put on the table. They range from the relatively mundane (the planting of forests on a grand scale), to the crazy but conceivable (a carbon dioxide removal industry, to capture our emissions and bury them underground), to the barely believable (injecting millions of tiny reflective particles into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight). In fact, the group of technologies awkwardly yoked together under the label ‘geoengineering’ have very little in common beyond their stated purpose: to keep the dangerous effects of climate change at bay.Monkeying around with the Earth’s systems at 

RE: [geo] Congress seeks GHG solutions

[markcapron]

David - Yes. Wonder if Obama will see the middle ground: approve Keystone XL contingent on an increasing carbon tax.Meanwhile it is easy to respond to Waxman-Whitehouse. 1. Check if you are a member of any of the listed organizations, odds are you are. The Congressmen asked for thoughts from members off Being a member gives you an excuse to send your answers.2. Draft a short letter with your suggested actions.3  Email the letter to listed contact people.Feel free to excerpt from my suggested actions, attached as MSWord. For your convenience the Congressional letter and distribution list are also attached.Mark E. Capron, PEOxnard, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: Re: [geo] Congress seeks GHG solutions
From: David Lewis jrandomwin...@gmail.com
Date: Sat, February 02, 2013 11:42 am
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com

On the Waxman-Whitehouse initiative, and Keystone XL:If the "movement" succeeds in persuading Obama he needs to spend some of his limited political capital by refusing to approve Keystone XL, there will be less political capital available to accomplish whatever comes of this Waxman-Whitehouse initiative. And the result of no Keystone XL crossing the border may only be the discovery by US activists that Canada can and will move its oil through its own territory to its own ports. The "movement" might accomplish more by changing its political line from "it's game over for the climate unless the US border is closed to tar sand oil" to something more coherent.Eg: the "movement" could modify its opposition to Keystone XL by saying it could accept the pipeline IF the permit required tar sand oil entering the US to meet some new EPA standard limiting the CO2 emitted while it was produced. That EPA standard could be for all oil imported into, or even all oil sold in the US. The limit, initially, could be something like "less than or equal to US average oil production", or "less than or equal to US unconventional oil production", or "less than or equal to average US imported oil" etc. A regulation subject to improvement as political will develops, if political will develops, could prove to be more effective than merely prohibiting Keystone XL. The Keystone XL effort as it stands, given Obama's fresh mandate and inaugural speech declaration on climate, seems too limited and ineffectual. The rhetoric circulating to support it is increasing climate confusion. The risk, that pressure to eliminate the EPA altogether could become to great to stop, seems much less now than prior to the election. Many in Canada have assumed something like this would be coming eventually and a certain amount of RD has already been done on how to reduce or compensate for the extra CO2 emitted as tar sand oil is produced. David Keith has an inside view on this. Canadians who are cynical about a US hammer coming down on their tar sand oil which exempts every other oil source in the world including US unconventionally produced oil will have to face a more understandable, fair, and politicallysalablebarrier. Canadians could choose to pioneer carbon capture technology to make their oil salable rather than build the new infrastructure they need to move their oil. The Obama administration would be presented with a better strategy to spend whatever political capital it thinks it has for climate on. On Friday, February 1, 2013 9:02:31 AM UTC-8, Greg Rau wrote:   --  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?hl=en. 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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

RE: [geo] 1. Prospects for an Emergency Drawdown of CO2

[markcapron]

Dear Dr. Tuck,Might you outline how to perform an entropy analysis on Ocean MacroAlgal Afforestation captured and stored CO2? Or suggest someone who could? The bioCO2 from OMA is a byproduct of solar powered photosynthesis along with bioCH4. The bioCO2 is separated and concentrated in a low-energy microbial anaerobic digestion process. A portion, perhaps 10% of the bioCH4 could power the bioCO2 storage.Mark E. Capron, PEOxnard, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: Re: [geo] 1. Prospects for an Emergency Drawdown of CO2
From: "Dr. Adrian Tuck" dr.adrian.t...@sciencespectrum.co.uk
Date: Sun, January 27, 2013 11:08 pm
To: william.cal...@gmail.com
Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com,  James Donaldson
jdona...@chem.utoronto.ca, Matt Hitchman m...@aos.wisc.edu,  Erik
Richard erik.rich...@lasp.colorado.edu,  Heikki Tervahattu
heikki.tervaha...@gmail.com, Veronica Vaida va...@colorado.edu, 
Chuck Wilson jwil...@du.edu

With regard to the sequestration of excess carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere and halocline, I'd like to see an entropy analysis of such a procedure. The entropically entailed energy cost of removing the present burden at a dilution 400 ppmv is very likely to be so large that a thermodynamic profit, as contrasted to a possible short term economic one, is probably unattainable. Even if it could be theoretically done in an engineering sense, the nonlinearities in the entire, coupled system would still make the consequences unpredictable. On 28 January 2013 00:51, William H. Calvin william.cal...@gmail.com wrote:   This is written for a less expert audience than seen here at Google Groups Geoengineering, but bear with me as this is an example of how to frame policy priorities. wcal...@uw.edu  Suppose we had to quickly put the CO2 genie back in the bottle. After a half-century of “thinking small” about climate action, we would be forced to think big—big enough to quickly pull back from the danger zone for tipping points and other abrupt climate shifts.  By addressing the prospects for an emergency drawdown of excess CO2 now, we can also judge how close we have already come to painting ourselves into a corner where all escape routes are closed off.7  Getting serious about emissions reduction will be the first course of action to come to mind in a climate crisis, as little else has been discussed. But it has become a largely ineffective course of action11 with poor prospects, as the following argument shows. In half of the climate models14, global average overheating is more than 2°C by 2048. But in the US, we get there by 2028. It is a similar story for other large countries. Because most of the growth in emissions now comes from the developing countries burning their own fossil fuels to modernize with electricity and personal vehicles, emissions growth is likely out of control, though capable of being countered by removals elsewhere. But suppose the world somehow succeeds. In the slow growth IPCC scenario, similar to what global emissions reduction might buy us, 2°C arrives by 2079 globally–but in the US, it arrives by 2037.  So drastic emissions reduction worldwide would only buy the US nine extra years.  However useful it would have been in the 20th century, emissions reduction has now become a failed strategy, though still useful as a booster for a more effective intervention.  We must now resort to a form of geoengineer­ing that will not cause more trouble than it cures, one that addresses ocean acidification as well as overheating and its knock-on effects. Putting current and past CO2 emissions back into secure storage5 would reduce the global overheating, relieve deluge and drought, reverse ocean acidification, reverse the thermal expansion portion of sea level rise, and reduce the chance of more4 abrupt climate shifts.  Existing ideas for removing the excess CO2 from the air appear inadequate: too little, too late. They do not meet the test of being sufficiently big, quick, and secure. There is, however, an idealized approach to ocean fertilization5 that appears to pass this triple test.  It mimics natural up- and down-welling processes using push-pull ocean pumps powered by the wind. One pump pulls sunken nutrients back up to fertilize the ocean surface—but then another pump immediately pushes the new plankton production down to the slow-moving depths before it can revert to CO2.  How Big? How Fast? The atmospheric CO2 is currently above 390 parts per million and the excess CO2 growth has been exponential. Excess CO2 is that above 280 ppm in the air, the pre-industrial (1750) value and also the old maximum concentration for the last several million years of ice age fluctuations between 200 and 280 ppm.  Is a 350 ppm reduction target12, allowing a 70 ppm anthropogenic excess, low enough? We hit 350 ppm in 1988, well after the sudden circulation shift18 in 1976, the decade-long failure of Greenland Sea flushing24 that began in 1978, and the sustained 

RE: [geo] Re: Ocean based algal growth: rate of CO2 transfer

[markcapron]

Greg, Michael, and Chris,We need a dynamic analysis to know what happens with upwelling as a way to supply nutrients to a macroalgae forest. During daylight, it appears possible to match the upwelling with the forest density such that the macroalgae consume CO2 or HCO3- with a corresponding increase in pH and more CO2 leaves the atmosphere (in spite of the upwelling). But we cannot easily turn the upwelling off at night and on during the day. The macroalgae may be giving off CO2 at night.If we can demonstrate upwelling and the directly recycled nutrients growing macroalgae instead of microalgae, we should be able to demonstrate upwelling which nets CO2 removal in conjunction with an Ocean Macroalgal Afforestation (OMA) operation. OMA does not store C by downwelling. OMA first converts C to bioCH4 and bioCO2 and then stores the bioCO2 while recycling the plant nutrients. The steady-state model used for "Negative carbon via Ocean Afforestation" includes a shallow (200 meter depth) upwelling for about 30% of the nutrients. It is not possible to harvest and recycle all the plant nutrients via the anaerobic digestion step.MarkMark E. Capron, PEOxnard, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Ocean based algal growth: rate of CO2 transfer
From: RAU greg gh...@sbcglobal.net
Date: Wed, January 23, 2013 8:20 pm
To: voglerl...@gmail.com, geoengineering@googlegroups.com

Again, as illustrated in the attached, one of my concerns about increasing upwelling is that you increase ocean CO2 degassing to air. Surface ocean pCO2's near 700 ppm are observed during intense upwelling here off the CA coast. Yes, in theory that could be offset by marine photosynthetic uptake of CO2 (enhanced by the upwelled nutrients), but then it won't be if those nutrients are downwelled before algae and light are allowed to perform their full magic. On the other hand harvesting any marine biomass produced, and converting this to fuel or electricity could help offset fossil fuel use and CO2 emissions - policy, economics, and subsidies permitting. Would be interesting to run the numbers on simply harvesting/filtering existing marine biomass in productive areas and converting to energy (of course with non-C components returned to the ocean to keep the algae fed). Remember that such harvesting/filtering by whales and conversion to whale oil was a preferred non-fossil fuel source 150 years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Whale_Oil_and_Sperm_Oil_Imports_(1805-1905).jpgAnyone for 21rst century, genetically engineered, free-range whale ranching?Or perhaps, in the interest of not further enslaving fellow mammals, our friends at the APS could redeploy their DAC engineers to design and cost out the perfect mechanical whale ;-)-Greg From: Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.comTo: geoengineering@googlegroups.comSent: Wed, January 23, 2013 5:00:01 PMSubject: Re: [geo] Re: Ocean based algal growth: rate of CO2 transferHi Folks,  Chris, Dr.Calvin's focus on the Push/Pull-Sequestration aspect was an important and practicaladvancementconcerning the general concept. I had been focused upon the practical operational aspects ofa sustainableopen ocean cultivation system design and his inputopened my eyes to the importance to deep pumping.I had only considered the use of down welling within littoral waters to prevent dead zones. Baring anyone finding reference to an earlier description of deep pumping sequestration, I propose that such a pump be named in respect of Dr. Calvinwith his permission.   Here is a well written analysis of off shore commercial macroalgae production: Marine Estate Research Report, Carbon footprint of seaweed as a biofuel www.thecrownestate.co.uk/.../carbon_footprint_of_seaweed_as_a_bi...The Crown Estate manages approximately 50% of the UK foreshore and almost the entire seabed out to the 12 nautical mile limit. Part of its role is to issue leases for commercial aquaculture cultivation operations. Apart from a food source, The Crown Estate sees further commercial potential in using the marine waters around the UK, particularly around Scotland, for cultivating marine biomass in the form of macro-algae (seaweed) for energy purposes.   There are a number of ways to approach large scale open oceanmacroalgal cultivation systems architecture.Yet, the most stable end up mimicking a bee hive. I believe Salter Ducks would be highly useful in constructing the barriers andproviding both WEC/breakwaters services. Central to each cell would be a digester anddown welling (Calvin)pump(s). The barriers would support the up welling pumps.   Thus, the hydraulic/surface flow (in calm seas, mild current) would be directed to the central area of the cell and then pumped to prescribed depth. The greater the number of cells, the greater the stability of the system. However, there are a legion of variables that need to be evaluated for each site.   Using this basic (and easily replicable) architecture,small 

Lots of CO2 RE: [geo] (Recovering CO2 from seawater for) A Zero Emissions Vehicle Fuel? | The Energy Collective

[markcapron]

John,How would the "H+ on a membrane" process work if the seawater were saturated with CO2 at 10 to 50 atm (10,000 to 50,000 ppm)?One possible biomethane purification component of the Ocean Afforestation ecosystem is differential dissolution inside the anaerobic digestion. It should be possible to obtain biogas directly from the digester at about 90% biomethane: 10% bioCO2 (at 1 atm we get 60:40). Our current vision is to recover the bioCO2 by reducing pressure (pump liquid to the ocean surface). We then recompress the 90% bioCO2:10% biomethane toliquefythe bioCO2 and recover the biomethane.Recompression of the 90% bioCO2 uses about 10% of the system-produced energy.Do you suspect the membrane process would allow us to recover most of the bioCO2 independent of pressure? If so, we might operate the digesters at conditions where the CO2 is produced as either a hydrate or a liquid (without the need for the compression step). Or we operate the digesters at whatever and pump the liquid to the desired depth and temperature for membrane CO2 removal. (Still need all the liquid back at the surface with its dissolved plant nutrients and dissolved biomethane recovery.)Lots of issues to work around here. I would rather operate the digester above 20C. The membrane might not work with thick biofilms. We may need more energy to chop seaweed so that it will flow through our combination fixed film digester and CO2 extractor. ... Mark E. Capron, PEOxnard, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: Re: [geo] (Recovering CO2 from seawater for) A Zero Emissions
Vehicle Fuel? | The Energy Collective
From: John Morgan john.d.p.mor...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, January 17, 2013 2:51 am
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Cc: john.d.p.mor...@gmail.com

Hi,I'm the author of the seawater article. Thanks for your comments.On whether or not its costly, I did try to construct as defensible a costing as possible, given that the carbon capture technology has not left the lab. The cost assumptions are described through the article, and at the end in more detail in the Appendix on costings. At the end of the introduction is a link to a spreadsheet containing the detailed cost calculations, so you can see what I've done.There are many caveats, but given the assumptions, which are largely those of the US Navy researchers, it turns out to be surprisingly cheap. For nuclear electricity generated from cheap Chinese nuclear build, the cost for carbon capture comes out at ~$40/tonne, and the cost of the synfuel derived therefrom is about 80 cents a litre. If you think this is unrealistic, what would be valuable would be if you can point to errors or omissions in the assumptions.Note too that the CO2 capture process is not a molecular separation from seawater, at least not in the sense that I think Greg meant. CO2 is not separated by a membrane process, and the seawater is not passed through a membrane. Instead, H+ is generated electrolytically on the membrane surface, and seawater is pumped past the membrane. The pH drops, and the CO2 bubbles out of solution to be captured. The acid stream is recombined with a base stream that was generated as a complement, and returned to the ocean. This is a very energy efficient, and clean process. The difference in power between this process and a true membrane separation process is huge. And without costing it, I imagine its cheaper than solar calcining of limestone.kind regards,john   --  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/xSn5RetUieEJ. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. 





-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

RE: [geo] Re: Ocean based algal growth: rate of CO2 transfer

[markcapron]

William,Thank you for contributing details to the start-up of Ocean Afforestation.Once established the seaweed forests will be self-sustaining with 100% plant nutrient recycle. The nutrients would stay within about ten kilometers and six months of the growing plants. The established operation is not "mining" nutrients.In order to start a seaweed forest, we would have to borrow nutrients. The best place to borrow nutrients is from below the depth of sunlight penetration. Our analysis includes upwelling tubes to recycle nutrients which would otherwise drop out of the forest without cycling through the anaerobic digesters. The upwelling equipment used to start the forest will remain to sustain the forest. (Equipment and energy therefore explained in supplemental data to "Negative carbon via Ocean Afforestation.")Ocean Afforestation could use substantial research and development to answer such questions as:How are plant nutrients dispersed in order to grow a predominately macroalgal forest? (Microalgae can work, but are likely to require a more energy intensive harvest and are more difficult to anticipate increasing biodiversity.)Quantify time and space effects of interrupting ocean plant nutrient cycles as ocean forests are expanded to determine if there should be limits on how fast the ocean forests can be expanded.MarkMark E. Capron, PEOxnard, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: [geo] Re: Ocean based algal growth: rate of CO2 transfer
From: "William H. Calvin" william.cal...@gmail.com
Date: Thu, January 17, 2013 9:47 am
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com

Hello all, Thinks look different if one uses push-pump pumps rather than simply upwelling of nutrients. The upwelled DIC becomes insignificant compared to the DOC pushed down. Some of you may recall this argument from my GLOBAL FEVER book from the Univ of Chicago Press, but the following is an excerpt from my THE GREAT CO2 CLEANUP, chapter six: Plowing Under a Carbon-fixing Crop To avoid competing with the world’s food production and supplies of fresh water, most sequestered carbon must come from new biomass grown in new places. Here I explore how paired ocean pumps might uplift nutrients and then sink the new organic carbon back into the ocean depths.  Instead of sinking only the debris that is heavy enough to settle out, as in iron fertilization, we would be using bulk flow to sink the entire organic carbon soup of the wind-mixed layer (organisms plus the hundred-fold larger amounts of dissolved organic carbon) before its carbon reverts to CO2 and equilibrates with the atmosphere.  The CO2 later produced in the depths by the sunken carbon soup will reach the surface 400-6,000 years later. Smearing it out over that period greatly reduces the damaging peaks in ocean acidification and global fever. ... If we fertilize via pumping up and sink nearby via bulk flow (a push-pull pump), we are essentially burying a carbon-fixing crop, much as farmers plow under a nitrogen-fixing cover crop of legumes to fertilize the soil. Instead of sinking only the debris that is heavy enough, we would be sinking the entire organic carbon soup of the wind-mixed layer.  Algaculture minimizes respiration CO2 from higher up the food chain and so allows a preliminary estimate of the size of our undertaking. Suppose that a midrange 50 g (as dry weight) of algae can be grown each day under a square meter of sunlit surface, and that half is carbon. Thus it takes about 10-4 m2 to grow 1 gC each year. To produce our 30 GtC/yr drawdown would require 30 x 10+11 m2 (0.8% of the ocean surface, about the size of the Caribbean).  But because we pump the surface waters down, not dried algae, we would also be sinking the entire organic carbon soup of the wind-mixed surface layer: the carbon in living cells plus the hundred-fold larger amounts in the surface DOC. Thus the plankton plantations might require only 30 x 10+9 m2 (closer to the size of Lake Michigan). The space requirement will be more because downpumps will not capture all of the new plankton; it might be less because the relevant algaculture focuses on oil-containing algal species and on harvesting a biofuel crop, not on plowing under the local species as quickly as possible. The ocean pipe spacing, and the volume pumped down, will depend on the outflow needed to optimize the organic carbon production. [The chemostat calculation FYI.] Only field trials are likely to provide a better estimate for the needed size of sink-on-the-spot plankton plantations, pump numbers, and project costs. Though ocean fertilization is usually proposed for low productivity regions where iron is the limiting nutrient, another strategy is to boost the shoulder seasons in regions of seasonally high ocean productivity. For example, ocean primary productivity northeast of Iceland drops to half by June as the nutrients upwelled by winter winds are depleted. Continuing production then depends on recycling nutrients 

RE: [geo] Thermostatting The Earth

[markcapron]

Dear Leonard,Indeed, terrestrial afforestation can be a multi-product ecosystem solution to climate change.Concerning your June 2012 draft of "Irrigate Afforestation of Deserts":It would benefit from an even more detailed quantification of the fresh water and nitrogen nutrient cycle for both the carbon sequestration situation and the burn-for-fuel situation. Or does the draft include supplemental data showing those calculations?Might I suggest you examine Dr. Antoine N'Yeurt's, "Negative carbon via Ocean Afforestation" and supplemental data as an example for quantifying the plant nutrient cycle. (I am a co-author.) While the analysis is not as detailed as we would like, we have many things quantified including but far from limited to:System materials masses for the digestion containers based on 2% solids and multi-month digestion times;The materials for recycling plant nutrients which would otherwise "drop out the bottom" of the seaweed forest;The materials for a container where bacteria will convert a miniscule amount of dissolved CH4 to CO2 and significant ammonia/ammonium to nitrate;All the other materials, some of which may not be necessary;The associatedparasiticenergy even though wind or solar pv might be more practical;An assessment of the potential to produce N2O (serious GHG);A technique for concentrating the ammonia from ocean dead zones as ammonium sulfate for shipment to your terrestrial afforestation effort.Mark E. Capron, PEOxnard, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: [geo] Thermostatting The Earth
From: "lenor...@pipeline.com Ornstein" lenor...@pipeline.com
Date: Thu, January 10, 2013 1:16 am
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com

Irrigated Afforestation of Deserts to Thermostat the Earth, End Global Warmingand Provide Enormous Sustainable Sources of Wood to Replace Non-renewableFossil FuelsLeonard OrnsteinAbstractLarge-scale irrigated afforestation of sub-tropical deserts and, separately, reduced-impact logging (RIL)of fallen trees in ‘virgin’ tropical forests, have been proposed [1,2] as techniques to sequester more CO2than has been dumped into the atmosphere, by the burning of fossil fuels and by deforestation, since thebeginning of the industrial revolution (~1850). These two techniques could also provide a sustainable,low-CO2-foot-print1 replacement for the (non-renewable) fossil fuels that presently sustain worldeconomies. Yet such opportunities have been almost totally neglected in discussions of mitigation ofanthropogenic global warming (AGW). This essay reviews this problem and argues that suchtechniques, that can be accomplished mainly with well-established, (rather than new) technologies,provide an affordable way to thermostat the earth and preserve and improve quality of life (QOL).http://www.pipeline.com/~lenornst/ThermostattingTheEarth.pdf  --  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/k5mFuJ3G-B0J. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. 





-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

RE: [geo] Ocean based algal growth: rate of CO2 transfer

[markcapron]

Peter,

The calculations in "Negative carbon via Ocean Afforestation" are based on actual macroalgae growth rates with whatever CO2 transfer and nutrients are naturally available. Either may be limiting.

Your experience would appear to confirm our seaweed forests can be havens of high pH for critters in need of pre-industrial pH for shell formation.

Mark E. Capron, PEOxnard, Californiawww.PODenergy.org



 Original Message Subject: [geo] Ocean based algal growth: rate of CO2 transferFrom: Peter Flynn peter.fl...@ualberta.caDate: Wed, January 09, 2013 6:36 pmTo: geoengineering@googlegroups.com



I am joining this discussion late, so I hope I am not covering ground already discussed.

Some years back a graduate student and I looked at a conceptual scheme to grow algae and sink them into the deep ocean, using increased salinity from evaporation as the “pump”. We found that the rate limiting step was not sunlight or evaporation, but rather the transport of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere into the ocean. This was, as I recall, 10 times slower than the potential rate of growth of the algae.

We came to understand why agitation and CO2 addition are included in some commercial algal farms.

Peter Flynn

Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.
Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers
Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of Alberta
peter.fl...@ualberta.ca
cell: 928 451 4455


-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

RE: [geo] Negative carbon via Ocean Afforestation

[markcapron]

Andrew,

Ocean Macroalgal Afforestation is more of a concept revival with better technology and increased urgency than a new idea. The paper is vetted by co-author David Chynoweth, who has decades of research on seaweed to energy. I confess to alsobeing a co-author.

You hit thekey question: At what scale do demand limitations kick-in?

First note thatdemand (not sustainability)is limiting because the ecosystem scalesbeyond 9% of theworld ocean surface with environmental benefits defined by increased biodiversity and primary productivity.Unlike most biomass-to-energy or BECCS, Ocean Afforestation is not limited by nutrient recycling at any steady-state situation. (No free-lunch. OMA is solar powered.)

In the paper, and the six supplements, we limited the extent of Ocean Afforestation to 9% of ocean surface because that areacorresponds to a reasonable estimate of total world fossil energy demand in 2030.It seems reasonablethat the demand for bio-methane is the demand limitation because the process is funded primarily from biomethane sales.

Mark E. Capron, PEOxnard, Californiawww.PODenergy.org



 Original Message Subject: [geo] Negative carbon via Ocean AfforestationFrom: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.comDate: Tue, January 08, 2013 8:37 amTo: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.comPoster's note: From the abstract this sounds pretty breathless to me.I imagine that the economics of scaling will be complex, particularlywhen demand limitations kick in, and transport costs are properlyfactored.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957582012001206Negative carbon via Ocean AfforestationAntoine de Ramon N‘Yeurta et alhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2012.10.008AbstractOcean Afforestation, more precisely Ocean Macroalgal Afforestation(OMA), has the potential to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxideconcentrations through expanding natural populations of macroalgae,which absorb carbon dioxide, then are harvested to produce biomethaneand biocarbon dioxide via anaerobic digestion. The plant nutrientsremaining after digestion are recycled to expand the algal forest andincrease fish populations. A mass balance has been calculated fromknown data and applied to produce a life cycle assessment and economicanalysis. This analysis shows the potential of Ocean Afforestation toproduce 12 billion tons per year of biomethane while storing 19billion tons of CO2 per year directly from biogas production, plus upto 34 billion tons per year from carbon capture of the biomethanecombustion exhaust. These rates are based on macro-algae forestscovering 9% of the world's ocean surface, which could producesufficient biomethane to replace all of today's needs in fossil fuelenergy, while removing 53 billion tons of CO2 per year from theatmosphere, restoring pre-industrial levels. This amount of biomasscould also increase sustainable fish production to potentially provide200 kg/yr/person for 10 billion people. Additional benefits arereduction in ocean acidification and increased ocean primaryproductivity and biodiversity.Highlights► Ocean Afforestation concentrates carbon dioxide for storage.► Ocean Afforestation also produces biofuels, food, and biodiversity.► Plant nutrient recycling might sustain the ecosystem to 350 ppmcarbon dioxide.► Multiple products reduce the cost of sequestering carbon dioxide.-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. 



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] DISCCRS: Climate Change Research Symposium for recent PhDs

[markcapron]

For recent PhDs.


 Original Message 
Subject: [DISCCRSnews] DISCCRS: Climate Change Research Symposium
From: Ruth Ladderud ladde...@whitman.edu
Date: Wed, January 09, 2013 9:23 am
To: Disccrs news disccrsn...@aslo.org

*** please distribute ***DISCCRS VIII Interdisciplinary Climate Change Research Symposiumhttp://disccrs.org/disccrsposter.pdfOctober 12-19, 2013La Foret Conference and Retreat Center (Colorado)Application Deadline: February 28, 2013Participation limited to 30 early-career Ph.D. scholarsAirfare and on-site expenses are supported through grants from NSF and NASAhttp://disccrs.orgThe DISsertations initiative for the advancement of Climate Change ReSearch (DISCCRS, pronounced discourse) hosts symposia for early-career climate change researchers. Our goal is to catalyze international, interdisciplinary collegial networks and foster collaborative interdisciplinary research and dynamic interactions between science and society to enable us to better understand and respond to the myriad challenges posed by climate change.During the weeklong symposium, 30 competitively selected recent Ph.D. graduates will share their research, engage in discussions with peers, mentors, and funding agency representatives, and hone their teambuilding and communication skills. Most importantly, scholars will depart from the symposium with a collegial peer network that extends across the full range of climate science.2012 Symposium Report: http://disccrs.org/files/DISCCRS_VII_Symposium_Report.pdf2012 Symposium Scholars: http://disccrs.org/files/DISCCRS_VII_Symposium_Scholars.pdfSymposium Eligibility: Ph.D. requirements completed between September 1, 2010 - February 28, 2013 in any field. Applicants should be conducting research relevant to the study of climate change, its impacts, or its societal implications. We encourage applicants from the biological, physical, and social sciences, mathematics, engineering, and other fields. While U.S. citizens and residents have preference, some funds are available for non-U.S. participants.Symposium Application Instructions: http://disccrs.org/application_instructionsDISCCRS Website: http://disccrs.orgDISCCRS Sponsoring SocietiesAAG, AERE, AGU, AMS, ASLO, ESA, ESS-ISA, STEP-APSA, TOS, USSEEDISCCRS FundingU.S. National Science Foundation Collaborative Grants: SES-0931402 to the University of Oregon andSES-0932916 to Whitman CollegeU.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Grant NNX10AJ53G to Whitman CollegeContact: i...@disccrs.org





-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

RE: [geo] Negative carbon via Ocean Afforestation

[markcapron]

Andrew,

Yes.Scaling the floating (or submerged) shipping , storage, and gas-to-liquid conversion facilitiesmay limit how fast we can getOMA toreplace all fossil fuel use and reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Luckily, OMA is unusual in that it is sustainable at the necessary scale to justify the facilities. The Life Cycle Assessment was based on moving the bio-methane to a floating offshore power plant with a 100 kilometer direct current cable connection to the grid. We could use many more scenarios for forest design and transportation.

It should take a decade or so of full-scale operations (many 10,000 ha forests) toachieve the Life Cycle Assessment cost estimates. We do expectmethane costs less than or equal to fracking produced natural gas at the well head. (Not allowing for the cost of fracking to increase with (necessary) regulation.) If we don't have a resonable premium for bio-methane over natural gas in a decade, we are doomed to more drastic measures.

Also, wealreadygo to the trouble of liquifying methane for shipping. Liquified natural gas (LNG) export, import, and associated tankers already exist. A decade ago the US was importing. Today the US is exporting. Tremendous natural gas infrastructure already exists. Cheap (hydrofractured)natural gas is displacing coal-fired electricity in the US. 

Plus, facilities for converting natural gas in liquid fuels and chemicals are in planning and under construction. See http://www.statoil.com/en/TechnologyInnovation/gas/GasLiquidsGTL/Pages/GasToLiquid.aspx.

Natural gas is a boom-bust fuel. When plentiful, we build facilities to use it preferentially to less clean burning and higher carbon coal and oil. Prices rise, facility construction slows, we find more, prices drop, facility construction increases, we use it up a lot faster than anticipated, prices rise,  The trick is to develop and deploy the OMA now, so that it is ready for the next upswing in natural gas.prices.

Mark

Mark E. Capron, PEOxnard, Californiawww.PODenergy.org



 Original Message Subject: Re: [geo] Negative carbon via Ocean AfforestationFrom: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.comDate: Wed, January 09, 2013 5:25 pmTo: markcap...@podenergy.orgCc: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.comMethane is flared around the world by the oil industry as a useless byproduct. Such flaring is generally limited by environmentallegislation rather than the existence of viable markets. Evenreasonably large methane sources close to population centres areflared off, such as in the Niger delta. Methane sources have to bevery large and well-connected to established markets before they canbe assumed to be viable for commercial exploitation. Alternatively,you'd have to build power stations custom-designed to use yourfeedstock, or the methane from it.I think that animal feed might be a better use for your products.However, ruminants will do a pretty good job of turning it back intohigh CO2e methane and releasing it!AOn 9 January 2013 15:22, markcap...@podenergy.org wrote: Andrew, Ocean Macroalgal Afforestation is more of a concept revival with better technology and increased urgency than a new idea. The paper is vetted by co-author David Chynoweth, who has decades of research on seaweed to energy. I confess to also being a co-author. You hit the key question: At what scale do demand limitations kick-in? First note that demand (not sustainability) is limiting because the ecosystem scales beyond 9% of the world ocean surface with environmental benefits defined by increased biodiversity and primary productivity. Unlike most biomass-to-energy or BECCS, Ocean Afforestation is not limited by nutrient recycling at any steady-state situation. (No free-lunch. OMA is solar powered.) In the paper, and the six supplements, we limited the extent of Ocean Afforestation to 9% of ocean surface because that area corresponds to a reasonable estimate of total world fossil energy demand in 2030. It seems reasonable that the demand for bio-methane is the demand limitation because the process is funded primarily from biomethane sales. Mark E. Capron, PE Oxnard, California www.PODenergy.org  Original Message  Subject: [geo] Negative carbon via Ocean Afforestation From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com Date: Tue, January 08, 2013 8:37 am To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Poster's note: From the abstract this sounds pretty breathless to me. I imagine that the economics of scaling will be complex, particularly when demand limitations kick in, and transport costs are properly factored. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957582012001206 Negative carbon via Ocean Afforestation Antoine de Ramon N‘Yeurta et al http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2012.10.008 Abstract Ocean Afforestation, more precisely Ocean Macroalgal Afforestation (OMA), has the potential to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations through expanding natural populations of 

RE: [geo] Ocean albedo, Haida / Russ George OIF experiment / OMA

[markcapron]

Ocean Macroalgal Afforestation (OMA) of 9% of the ocean surface also needs an albedo study. Perhaps start with the Sargasso Sea as an example of an existing floating macroalgal (seaweed) forest.There should be a difference in albedo changing from the typical "nutrient desert" to the high primary productivity of a seaweed forest sustained by quick nutrient recycling. Whatever that change is can be compensated by tweaking how the seaweed forests are managed.Mark E. Capron, PEOxnard, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: [geo] Ocean albedo, Haida / Russ George OIF experiment
From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com
Date: Wed, January 02, 2013 10:56 pm
To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com

Hi There was a lot of coverage of the Haida salmon / Russ George ocean iron fertilization experiment, both on this list and in the wider media. I guess a lot more data has been made available over time from satellites, etc. However, I don't recall seeing anything which quantified the ocean colour change and the resulting effect on albedo. I've previously run some numbers which suggested a globally significant effect from widespread ocean albedo changes resulting from biological interventions. Sadly, I've been unable to calibrate these estimates due to a lack of ability to convert photographic brightness to absolute albedo. I'm turning to the list for help, to see if anyone can offer data or calculations. Do you know, or can you infer, the change in absorption / reflection resulting from OIF? The Haida experiment is an ideal source, but any help is welcomed. Thanks A   --  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. 





-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

RE: [geo] Geoengineering: rules needed for climate-altering science - International institute for Strategic Studies

[markcapron]

Greg and Group,Your selection of gems from the IISS Strategic Comments shows why GeoEngineering concepts are socially slow solutions to our excessive GHG emissions causing both warming and reduced ocean pH. We (many scientists and engineers) know GeoEngineering concepts can be technically quick. Technically quick means a couple decades to "full shield" and relative low cost allows unilateral action by developed countries. Socially slow means it is difficult to get permission (even for large experiments) from all those who will be affected.Because humanity's emissions are already starting to trigger more GHG releases we need non-GeoEngineering solutions which can scale quickly. Solutions that can be socially quick and might be technically fast enough. The new class of solutions would be self-funding sustainable ecosystems. For example, an ecosystem like Ocean Macroalgal Afforestation (OMA) can simultaneously produce renewable energy, increase primary production and biodiversity, and remove greenhouse gases from the air. Unlike most GeoEngineering experiments OMA trials can be contained (unilateral) and welcomed by locals (those within 100 km of a forest) and not opposed by others (those beyond 100 km).This is not to say OMA is all figured out. "Negative carbon via Ocean Afforestation" published in the PSEP Special Issue - Negative Emission Technology quantifies reversingatmosphericCO2 concentrations with OMA. Research to refine the understanding of OMA issues will also increase our understanding of the oceans and that will help with our understanding of the impacts and timing of GHG effects or potential GeoEngineering.Mark E. Capron, PEOxnard, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: Re: [geo] Geoengineering: rules needed for climate-altering
science - International institute for Strategic Studies
From: RAU greg gh...@sbcglobal.net
Date: Fri, January 04, 2013 8:39 pm
To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com, geoengineering
geoengineering@googlegroups.com

A few gems from below:"With mitigation efforts apparentlyfailing to deliver, and the costs of adapting to climate changegrowing disproportionately as global temperatures rise, 'remediation'in the form of geoengineering is increasingly being considered as aback-up plan.""Apparently failing"? -  record increases in CO2 emissions occurred last year and there's no end in sight. How about geoengineering as the only plan? What is the viable option if nothing else is working??"With geoengineering for climate change still almost entirely at thespeculative and theoretical stage, its potential effects – whetherharmful or beneficial – are still largely unknown."Since when are the climate and ocean acidification effects of stabilizing or reducing air CO2 conc (CDR) speculative?"theAmerican Meteorological Society (AMS), for example, defines it [geoengineering] simplyas 'deliberately manipulating physical, chemical or biological aspectsof the Earth system', without specifying the ultimate goal of suchmanipulation."So given that we now know that BAU isdeliberately manipulating physical, chemical and biological aspectsof the Earth system, where are the ethics police when you need them?"The most promisinggeoengineering approach is stratospheric aerosol injection, but it isalso potentially the most dangerous, especially with regard to ozonedepletion and acid rain."More dangerous than BAU? Impossible to engineer aerosol injection to avoid ozone depletion and acid rain?"Theintent of the British Columbian project was specifically to enhancesalmon fisheries rather than to develop a better understanding ofclimate modification."The stated intent of the BC project was both to get carbon credits and to enhance salmon. The problem here is not intent, the problem is that the project was conducted in a way that the efficacy and well as the negative impacts if the Fe addition will probably never be learned. Meanwhile, the transfer of wealth from indians to entrepeneurs seemed to work pretty well."Moreover, it may bejust as hard to mobilise research and resources for large-scalegeoengineering as it is to limit or reduce emissions."Well, since we know that the current efforts to reduce emissions are failing, perhaps it's time to invest a fraction of this effort in other ideas just to test the preceding assumption. Again, what's the better alternative?etc.-GregFrom: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.comTo: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.comSent: Fri, January 4, 2013 2:18:12 AMSubject: [geo] Geoengineering: rules needed for climate-altering science - International institute for Strategic StudiesPDFhttp://www.iiss.org/EasySiteWeb/getresource.axd?AssetID=71853type=fullservicetype=AttachmentLinkhttp://www.iiss.org/publications/strategic-comments/past-issues/volume-18-2012/december/geoengineering-rules-needed-for-climate-altering-science/Geoengineering: rules needed for climate-altering scienceThe dumping in July 2012 of 100 tonnes of iron sulphate into 

RE: [geo]_Is_biochar_or_straw-bale_construction_a_better _carbon_storage_from_a_life_cycle_perspective?_Tuomas_Mattil a,_,_Juha_Grönroos,_Jachym_Judl,_Marja-Riitta_Korhonen

[markcapron]

Andrew,

Good catch. Biochar-Straw is one of several interesting articles in the PSEP Special Issue - Negative Emission Technology. 

The most impactful article's lead author is Dr. Antoine N’Yeurt of the University of the South Pacific, Fiji. “Negative carbon via Ocean Afforestation” and the supplementary data are available atwww.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957582012001206.
Other articles appearing in the "Negative Emissions Technology" issue include:
A comparative global assessment of potential negative emissions technologiesNovember 2012Duncan McLaren
Ocean fertilization for geoengineering: A review of effectiveness, environmental impacts and emerging governanceNovember 2012Phillip Williamson | Douglas W.R. Wallace | Cliff S. Law | Philip W. Boyd | Yves Collos | Peter Croot | Ken Denman | Ulf Riebesell | Shigenobu Takeda | Chris Vivian
Is biochar or straw-bale construction a better carbon storage from a life cycle perspective?November 2012Tuomas Mattila | Juha Grönroos | Jachym Judl | Marja-Riitta Korhonen
High-level techno-economic assessment of negative emissions technologiesNovember 2012Niall McGlashan | Nilay Shah | Ben Caldecott | Mark Workman
Can boreal afforestation help offset incompressible GHG emissions from Canadian industries?November 2012J.-F. Boucher | P. Tremblay | S. Gaboury | C. Villeneuve
Special issue – Negative Emissions TechnologyNovember 2012Tim Kruger | Richard Darton (Note: This is a one-page introduction, not the entire special issue.)

Mark E. Capron, PEOxnard, Californiawww.PODenergy.org



 Original Message Subject: [geo]_Is_biochar_or_straw-bale_construction_a_better_carbon_storage_from_a_life_cycle_perspective?_Tuomas_Mattila,_,_Juha_Grönroos,_Jachym_Judl,_Marja-Riitta_KorhonenFrom: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.comDate: Fri, January 04, 2013 2:43 amTo: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.comhttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957582012001188Is biochar or straw-bale construction a better carbon storage from alife cycle perspective?Tuomas Mattila, , Juha Grönroos, Jachym Judl, Marja-Riitta KorhonenFinnish Environment Institute SYKE, Mechelininkatu 34a, 00251 Helsinki, Finlandhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2012.10.006, How to Cite or Link Using DOIAbstractBiochar has been presented as a key technology for avoiding dangerousclimate change. Pyrolysis converts part of the biomass feedstock intoa gaseous fraction, which can be used for energy production. Theremaining fraction is char, which is highly stable and resistant tobiodegradation. When char is added to soil it increases carbonstorage, reduces emissions and improves soil quality. Agriculturalresidues such as straw, stover and hulls are seen as the mostaccessible raw material. These residues could also be used asinsulation in passive energy housing. Straw bale construction is arelatively simple technology, which has been applied for decades. Itcan store the carbon of the straw material into walls structures andin the process provides energy efficient housing. The climate benefitsfrom improved energy efficiency depend on local conditions and energyproduction forms. In this study life cycle assessment was used tocompare the climate impacts of biochar production and straw baleconstruction. On a life cycle perspective, straw bale constructionresults in higher net carbon storage than biochar production (3.3 tCO2eq vs. 0.9 t CO2eq/t of straw). However the result was found to behighly dependent on the assumptions on the overall energy efficiencyof the replaced building stock.KeywordsCarbon storage; Straw; Pyrolysis; Natural building; Life cycle assessment-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

RE: Oceans? RE: [geo] Natural land air capture nutrient limited

[markcapron]

Ron (cc Greg, list),

Perhaps biochar is another C-separation process for biochar Ocean Macroalgal Afforestation (as opposed to anaerobic digestion OMA). There may be more processes.

Any process which separates the energy (carbon  hydrogen) from the plant nutrients (organic nitrogen, phosphorous, iron, and others) and then recycles them to grow more macroalgae (while selling the renewable energy) can be sustained over sufficiently large earth surface area. Microbial digestion is the most common process in nature.

I haven't gotten into ocean albedo effects when converting large ocean areas from nutrient deserts to macroalgal forests.

Mark E. Capron, PEOxnard, Californiawww.PODenergy.org



 Original Message Subject: Re: Oceans? RE: [geo] Natural land air capture nutrientlimitedFrom: rongretlar...@comcast.netDate: Wed, October 03, 2012 4:59 pmTo: markcap...@podenergy.orgCc: r...@llnl.gov, geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com





Mark (cc Greg, list) See insert responses below.

From: markcap...@podenergy.orgTo: rongretlar...@comcast.netCc: r...@llnl.gov, "geoengineering" geoengineering@googlegroups.comSent: Wednesday, October 3, 2012 5:59:17 AMSubject: RE: Oceans? RE: [geo] Natural land air capture nutrient limited
Ron,

How perfect is the nutrient recycling when you convert macroalgae to charcol?
  [RWL:  A good question that I am not qualified to answer.   One thought is that it seems the present ocean has considerable excess nitrogen and phosphorus, and that land-based agriculture and forestry need these in large amounts. So, to the extent that conversion of the macroalgae is to char which ends up on land, recycling these two excess nutrients out of the ocean - would seem to be entirely desirable. A second train of thought going around the biochar community is that coupling char with appropriate sea-salts will add to biochar's value. I can conceive, but this needs checking, that char from ocean-based macroalgae would find favor among biochar users because of a larger amount of many micronutrients.
Is there any energy left over after you lift the macroalgae (and some water) out of the water and remove all the water from the macroalgae in order to make char? [RWL: Again, I do not claim to be expert on this. But I have seen the concept of macroalgae being used for conversion to biofuels since the mid-'70s. Indeed in one major 100% RE study from that period (MITRE or SRI?) most of the world fuel liquid market was projected to come from macroalgae. Sure, micanthus, sugar cane, etc are "woodier", but the main issue is the photosynthetic carbon productivity (kg C/sqm-yr). In my experience, pyrolysis can handle anything that biogas can. I think the Cool Planet pyrolysis approach gives a larger total of valuable C product - as there is little CO2 production. I hope we can hear from anyone thinking the idea of macroalgae cannot be both a major energy and sequestration option.Ron]
Mark

 Original Message Subject: Re: Oceans? RE: [geo] Natural land air capture nutrientlimitedFrom: rongretlar...@comcast.netDate: Tue, October 02, 2012 9:32 pmTo: markcap...@podenergy.orgCc: r...@llnl.gov, geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com


Mark, Greg, List I like your idea and will start looking up the macroalgae citations found at your site.   But I suggest (as did Greg Rau) that you investigate the biochar alternative to your proposed conversion through biogas. I see three main benefits to biochar over your CCS option as it impacts the Carbon Dioxide Removal portion of this list. First is that liquifying and deep-sequestering the accompanying CO2 seems unlikely to be ready soon - and will always be pretty expensive (especially at small scale). More importantly, char obtained from pyrolyzing your macroalgae will provide out-year benefits from up to millenia. Lastly, natural gas transport to the mainland seems likely to involve considerable expense - more so than moving a solid or liquid. Your possible project in Fiji could have a valuable char side immediately, while a BECCS approach seems likely to be many years away - so you will be foregoing the promising sequestration potential of ocean biomass that Greg is looking for. A good place to see the current status of pyrolysis and biochar at what seems to be the leading commercial biochar (and biofuel?) entity is only 20 miles east of you. Look at (I have no connection): www.coolplanetbiofuels.com Ron

From: markcap...@podenergy.orgTo: r...@llnl.gov, "geoengineering" geoengineering@googlegroups.comSent: Tuesday, October 2, 2012 7:05:42 PMSubject: Oceans? RE: [geo] Natural land air capture nutrient limited
Greg,


Another solution is rapid nutrient recycling, as happens in the Ocean Afforestation ecosystem.


Deploying the Ocean Afforestation ecosystem over 4% of the world's ocean surface would imply cycling about 16 times the global artificial nitrogen plant fertilizer production. The recycle will happen over distances of a few 

RE: Oceans? RE: [geo] Natural land air capture nutrient limited

[markcapron]

Ron,

How perfect is the nutrient recycling when you convert macroalgae to charcol?

Is there any energy left over after you lift the macroalgae (and some water) out of the water and remove all the water from the macroalgae in order to make char?
Mark

 Original Message Subject: Re: Oceans? RE: [geo] Natural land air capture nutrientlimitedFrom: rongretlar...@comcast.netDate: Tue, October 02, 2012 9:32 pmTo: markcap...@podenergy.orgCc: r...@llnl.gov, geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com


Mark, Greg, List I like your idea and will start looking up the macroalgae citations found at your site.   But I suggest (as did Greg Rau) that you investigate the biochar alternative to your proposed conversion through biogas. I see three main benefits to biochar over your CCS option as it impacts the Carbon Dioxide Removal portion of this list. First is that liquifying and deep-sequestering the accompanying CO2 seems unlikely to be ready soon - and will always be pretty expensive (especially at small scale). More importantly, char obtained from pyrolyzing your macroalgae will provide out-year benefits from up to millenia. Lastly, natural gas transport to the mainland seems likely to involve considerable expense - more so than moving a solid or liquid. Your possible project in Fiji could have a valuable char side immediately, while a BECCS approach seems likely to be many years away - so you will be foregoing the promising sequestration potential of ocean biomass that Greg is looking for. A good place to see the current status of pyrolysis and biochar at what seems to be the leading commercial biochar (and biofuel?) entity is only 20 miles east of you. Look at (I have no connection): www.coolplanetbiofuels.com Ron

From: markcap...@podenergy.orgTo: r...@llnl.gov, "geoengineering" geoengineering@googlegroups.comSent: Tuesday, October 2, 2012 7:05:42 PMSubject: Oceans? RE: [geo] Natural land air capture nutrient limited
Greg,


Another solution is rapid nutrient recycling, as happens in the Ocean Afforestation ecosystem.


Deploying the Ocean Afforestation ecosystem over 4% of the world's ocean surface would imply cycling about 16 times the global artificial nitrogen plant fertilizer production. The recycle will happen over distances of a few kilometers and time scalesof a few months. Theecosystem would also be cycling proportional masses of all the other nutrients needed to grow macroalgae.

Perhaps more important than nutrients, land plants are limited by fresh water and the timing of fresh water (no good to rain in August if the corn kernel silks lacked water to deploy July).


Mark E. Capron, PEOxnard, Californiawww.PODenergy.org



 Original Message Subject: [geo] Natural land air capture nutrient limitedFrom: "Rau, Greg" r...@llnl.govDate: Tue, October 02, 2012 10:53 amTo: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com

Possible solutions:
fertilize
genetically select/modify
reduce CO2 recycling (CROPS, Biochar)
all of the above.
Greg

Nature|News




Earth’s carbon sink downsized
Abundance of soil nutrients a limiting factor in plants’ ability to soak up carbon dioxide.

Amanda Mascarelli
01 October 2012
Plants need enriched soil to make use of increasing carbon dioxide.
As carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere continue to climb, most climate models project that the world’s oceans and trees will keep soaking up more than half of the extra CO2. But researchers report this week that the capacity for land plants to absorb more CO2will be much lower than previously thought, owing to limitations in soil nutrients1.

Because plants take up CO2during photosynthesis, it has long been assumed that they will provide a large carbon ‘sink’ to help offset increases in atmospheric CO2caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Some scientists have argued that the increase might even be good for plants, which would presumably grow faster and mop up even more CO2. Climate models estimate that the world’s oceans have absorbed about 30% of the CO2that humans have released in the past 150 years and that land plants have gulped another 30%.
But the latest study, by ecologists Peter Reich and Sarah Hobbie at the University of Minnesota in St Paul, suggests that estimates of how much CO2land plants can use are far too optimistic. Plants also need soil nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, to grow. But few studies have tested whether soils contain enough of these nutrients to fuel growth in proportion to rising CO2.
“This work addresses a question that’s been out there for decades,” says Bruce Hungate, an ecosystem scientist at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff. "It's a hard question to answer, because it takes a long time to see how ecosystem carbon and nitrogen cycles change."
Long-term growth
In a 13-year field experiment on 296 open-air plots, the researchers grew perennial grassland species under ambient and elevated concentrations of both atmospheric CO2and soil nitrogen.
“Rather 

Oceans? RE: [geo] Natural land air capture nutrient limited

[markcapron]

Greg,


Another solution is rapid nutrient recycling, as happens in the Ocean Afforestation ecosystem.


Deploying the Ocean Afforestation ecosystem over 4% of the world's ocean surface would imply cycling about 16 times the global artificial nitrogen plant fertilizer production. The recycle will happen over distances of a few kilometers and time scalesof a few months. Theecosystem would also be cycling proportional masses of all the other nutrients needed to grow macroalgae.

Perhaps more important than nutrients, land plants are limited by fresh water and the timing of fresh water (no good to rain in August if the corn kernel silks lacked water to deploy July).


Mark E. Capron, PEOxnard, Californiawww.PODenergy.org



 Original Message Subject: [geo] Natural land air capture nutrient limitedFrom: "Rau, Greg" r...@llnl.govDate: Tue, October 02, 2012 10:53 amTo: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com

Possible solutions:
fertilize
genetically select/modify
reduce CO2 recycling (CROPS, Biochar)
all of the above.
Greg

Nature|News




Earth’s carbon sink downsized
Abundance of soil nutrients a limiting factor in plants’ ability to soak up carbon dioxide.

Amanda Mascarelli
01 October 2012
Plants need enriched soil to make use of increasing carbon dioxide.
As carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere continue to climb, most climate models project that the world’s oceans and trees will keep soaking up more than half of the extra CO2. But researchers report this week that the capacity for land plants to absorb more CO2will be much lower than previously thought, owing to limitations in soil nutrients1.

Because plants take up CO2during photosynthesis, it has long been assumed that they will provide a large carbon ‘sink’ to help offset increases in atmospheric CO2caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Some scientists have argued that the increase might even be good for plants, which would presumably grow faster and mop up even more CO2. Climate models estimate that the world’s oceans have absorbed about 30% of the CO2that humans have released in the past 150 years and that land plants have gulped another 30%.
But the latest study, by ecologists Peter Reich and Sarah Hobbie at the University of Minnesota in St Paul, suggests that estimates of how much CO2land plants can use are far too optimistic. Plants also need soil nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, to grow. But few studies have tested whether soils contain enough of these nutrients to fuel growth in proportion to rising CO2.
“This work addresses a question that’s been out there for decades,” says Bruce Hungate, an ecosystem scientist at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff. "It's a hard question to answer, because it takes a long time to see how ecosystem carbon and nitrogen cycles change."
Long-term growth
In a 13-year field experiment on 296 open-air plots, the researchers grew perennial grassland species under ambient and elevated concentrations of both atmospheric CO2and soil nitrogen.
“Rather than building a time machine and comparing how ecosystems behave in 2070 — which is hard to do — we basically create the atmosphere of 2070 above our plots,” says Reich.
Reich and Hobbie found that from 2001 to 2010, grasses growing under heightened CO2levels grew only half as much in untreated as in enriched nitrogen soils.
Researchers do not have a firm grasp on the complexities of nitrogen and carbon cycle interactions, so “the vast majority of models do not adequately reflect nutrient limitation”, says Adrien Finzi, a biogeochemist at Boston University in Massachusetts. “The real strength in this study is that now we have this 13-year record of a single ecosystem. It provides a really strong case for the claim that soil resources and nitrogen limitation in particular can impose a major constraint on carbon storage in terrestrial ecosystems.”
A study published in March modelled nutrient cycling across the globe to predict how much carbon plants could sequester over the next 100 years when nutrient limitations are taken into account2. Those simulations, which included nitrogen limitations in northern hemisphere soils and phosphorus limitations in the tropics, predicted that land plants will absorb 23% less carbon than is projected by other models.
Researchers say that much more work is needed to understand how nutrient dynamics will affect carbon uptake — particularly in forest ecosystems, which are expected to be important carbon sinks. Often, says Hungate, these ecosystems seem to offer a “partial, natural, easy solution” to the climate problem. “But it turns out that in reality, ecosystems are complex and only have limited flexibility.”
Nature
doi:10.1038/nature.2012.11503
References
1.Reich, P. B.Hobbie, S. E.Nature Climate Change advance online publication,http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1694(2012).
Show context
2.Goll, D. S.et al.Biogeosciences9,3547–3569(2012).

-- You received this message because you are subscribed 

RE: [geo] Post-doc Opportunity: Innovative Solutions to the Energy/Carbon/Climate Problem

[markcapron]

Ken - Please look for at least one to have an "ocean perspective." Maybe someone who has born and lived on an island nation, or at least an ocean oriented education, the University of the South Pacific, University of Hawaii, etc.I will forward to those I know.Mark E. Capron, PEOxnard, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: [geo] Post-doc Opportunity: Innovative Solutions to the
Energy/Carbon/Climate Problem
From: Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu
Date: Tue, January 24, 2012 9:38 am
To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com

The two scientists on my staff who worked on the "crop yields and geoengineering" paper that just came out in Nature Climate Change (Julia Pongratz and Long Cao) will be leaving our research group shortly. They are irreplaceable, but their departure does open up two positions in my group. If you know of any good scientists who are about to our have recently become PhD level scientists, please let me (and them) know.  Post-doc Opportunity: Innovative Solutions to the Energy/Carbon/Climate Problem Carnegie Institution Department of Global Ecology on the Stanford campus. We use and modify existing physics and biogeochemical models of the Earth (atmosphere, ocean, and land surface), and do back-of-envelope calculations, to help evaluate and develop innovative solutions to the energy/carbon/climate problem. We also address questions related to basic climate science, energy-systems analysis, and ocean acidification.   We seek to hire several outstanding post-doctoral researchers who can lead research projects that contribute to some of these research directions. We are looking to develop an exciting collegial atmosphere with a lot of personal freedom, wherein each group member both leads research projects and collaborates on projects led by others. The initial term will be for one year with the potential for renewal for up to a maximum of three years. The position will be at the Carnegie Institution Dept. of Global Ecology on the Stanford University campus. Carnegie Institution post-docs have access to most Stanford facilities. Interested potential post-docs should send to kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu: (1) a curriculum vitae, (2) a few sentences on research interests and/or possible research projects, and (3) the names and contact info for three references. Key factors in our hiring decisions will be intelligence, thoughtfulness, creativity, motivation, productivity, and a record of successful scientific or technical publication. We are flexible with regard to your domain of expertise. The Carnegie Institution is an equal-opportunity employer and does not discriminate based on race, sex, age, physical condition, or country of national origin. ___Ken CaldeiraCarnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA+1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira  --  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. 





-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

RE: [geo] Re: Mid Oceanic C4 plantations for Longterm GW Mitigation

[markcapron]

Michael,

Plastic is a two edged sword. Plastic hurts the oceans when incorrectly disposed. Plastic can save the oceans when carefully employed.

The main digester and many other components will be made of carefully engineered geotexiles made from their own biomethane, when not recycled material. My experience withlandfill liners, AquaDams,GeoTubes, Titan Tubes, and others suggests we can make 1,000,000 m3 containers with wall costsless than $10/m2. Once we get the design down, we prefab them on land, roll them up to put on a ship, drop them on site, and inflate them with the first batch of harvested algae.

The inexpensive containersallow for long detention times (perhaps 6 months)and low % solids (perhaps 1%) in the digester.

Mark E. Capron, PEOxnard, Californiawww.PODenergy.org



 Original Message Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Mid Oceanic C4 plantations for Longterm GWMitigationFrom: Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.comDate: Wed, June 29, 2011 9:43 pmTo: markcap...@podenergy.orgCc: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com,bhaskarmv...@gmail.comThanks Mark,

I was hoping to see you chime in. The estimate of 6% was what I also came up with, yet I took it out of the text at the last moment in favor of the mental image ofAntarctica (thanks forconfirmingmy math!). I do believe that a robust effort in OAA can reduce the total area somewhat, but it will still be at continental proportions. Theprocessingof thematerial is an aspect which I glanced over as I can foresee multiple materialhandling/processes systems eventually being used.

Your subsurface digester concept was in the back of my mind as one of ahandfulofprocessing systems within acentral hub(s). I am not clear on the means you propose of constructing something that size. Can you provide a clearer picture of the construction of the main reactor(s)? Have youconsidered growing it usingelectrolysis? Also, being able to dry the digested spoilage would be a useful ancillary consideration as that material would have many uses. Your digester(s) would have an important use just for theirbuoyancy. And thus, I can see small ones piped together and used as retention buoys (booms) with a large main reactor supporting the main processing hub. Please stop me if I am going too far.

On a differentforeseeablecore process.I can see the Hou Process providing a significant export product (fertilizer); Wikihttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_carbonate 
:
Hou's process
Developed by Chinese chemistHou Debangin 1930s, the first few steps are the same as the Solvay process. However, instead of treating the remaining solution with lime, carbon dioxide and ammonia are pumped into the solution, then sodium chloride is added until the solution saturates at 40 °C. Next, the solution is cooled to 10 °C.Ammonium chlorideprecipitates and is removed by filtration, and the solution is recycled to produce more sodium carbonate. Hou's process eliminates the production ofcalcium chlorideand the byproductammonium chloridecan be refined or used as a fertilizer.

Your call for research on OAA should bebumped up to the first rank of GE concepts beingconsidered...and reported...for many reasons. Just fourFirst, it is simple in concept and implementation. Second, it does not trigger significant ecological debates. Third,the ocean based biological approach is our best longterm means for dealing with the end of thefossil fuel era. Lastlyand most importantly,it begins to address the energy aspect of GW. I do not believe there is any other general GE concept which has a significant fuel production aspect. If a mitigation effort can offset it's owndevelopmentand operation cost through energy production and sells, it should have top rank. GW is a major battle and GE will be a major tool in fighting that battle. Non the less, we are fighting an energy war.

Thanks for your efforts,

Michael

 
On Wed, Jun 29, 2011 at 8:24 PM, markcap...@podenergy.org wrote:


Michael,

You are right, we need to find the optimum "forest" plants for upto 6% of the world's ocean surface. Ocean gyres would be good locations.

Whatever forest we arrange needs some mechanism for separating the carbon from the nutrients, otherwise we will be nutrient limited at human space and time scales.

PODenergy isjust starting to recruit researchers for issues, such as those listed in the attached, "OAA ecosystem researcher opportunities." At the moment, the researchers would need to find their own funding. In the US that might be National Science Foundation, Department of Energy (DOE), andNational Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration. The back of this list has a current explanation of Ocean Algal Afforestation developed for a US DOE proposal. Unfortunately, it was demeemed non-responsive because DOE's "Plants Engineered to Replace Oil" funding announcement waslooking forgenetic engineering ofplants.

Mark E. Capron, PEOxnard, Californiawww.PODenergy.org



 Original Message Subject: Re: [geo] Re: 

[geo] [FWD: Aerosol-Cloud-Precipitation Interaction research opp U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY/FEDERAL LOCATIONS today, 6/10/2011 1:39:00 PM.]]

[markcapron]

This looks like a funding opportunity forone geoengineering approach.



Title: Atmospheric System Research Reference Number: DE-FOA-556 NAICS Code: Response Due Date: 9/6/2011 11:59:00 PM ES Use the following link to view this opportunity:https://www.fedconnect.net/fedconnect?doc=DE-FOA-556agency=DOEIf you wish to continue to be notified about this opportunity, please be sure to Register. If someone else in your company has already registered your company's interest, add yourself to the Response Team by clicking Join.This message is sent to you as a courtesy because you listed DOE in your FedConnect user profile. If you wish to be removed from future emails about this agency, please update your user profile at https://www.fedconnect.net/fedconnect Please do not reply to this email. Your reply will not be received at this email address.If you wish to contact FedConnect, the On-line Marketplace for Federal Opportunities, email us at supp...@fedconnect.net and we will respond to your inquiry promptly.This service is provided for convenience only and does not serve as a guarantee of notification. Your use of the FedConnect service is subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the document titled "FedConnect Terms and Conditions of Use" which was agreed to as a precursor to your receiving this email notification.



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

RE: Easy ideal fluid RE: [geo] Deep ocean disposal

[markcapron]

Michael,

DOE has already decided our proposal to demonstrate less than 100 kg of CO2 as hydrate in geotextile containers does not qualify for DE-FOA-441: Small Scale Field Tests of Geologic Reservoir Classes for Geologic Storage. DOE’s version of “small scale” is a minimum of 20,000 tons. DOE plans to hand out up to $15 million per site for a total of $90 million, but the proposals must indemnify DOE from liability. Feel free to ask other governments and other researchers, if they would like to perform the demonstration. Or even ask other governments/investors to join with DOE in sharing the total $1.5 million “Research on Ocean Floor Container Carbon Storage.” There is a chance that DOE did not receive sufficient proposals to DE-FOA-441 meeting the liability requirements for 20,000 tons of CO2. (DOE is still evaluating the "Geologic Storage" proposals.)

Yes, the containers are necessary for storing the hydrate. When not contained, the hydrate slowly dissolves into the ocean. Also, hydrates are not easy to form. Research on transporting CO2 as hydrate suggests a lot of mixing at the right conditions is necessary. There are plenty of reasons to try an in-situ demonstration of geotextile contained hydrate.

Yes, joint facilities for Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion, Offshore Geothermal Energy, Ocean Algal Afforestation, Ocean Chemical “Trees”, Offshore Wind, Ocean Clouds, Ocean Diatoms, Ocean Alkalinity and the like, are likely to be more economic when combined than when built individually.

Everything divulged thus far is covered by a U.S. provisional patent application (which has a time limit for a formal application in the U.S. and other countries) or a U.S. formal application which is past the time for filing in other countries.

Mark E. Capron, PEOxnard, Californiawww.PODenergy.org



 Original Message Subject: Re: Easy ideal fluid RE: [geo] Deep ocean disposalFrom: Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.comDate: Sat, June 04, 2011 4:47 pmTo: markcap...@podenergy.orgCc: r...@llnl.gov, geoengineering@googlegroups.comHi Folks, 


Thanks for the numbers on Ocean Algal Afforestation and the overall work you and Dr. Stewart have presented. The ocean afforestation approach is an idea which has made a good deal of practical sense to me for sometime. My post concerning the "MODEST" concept was an attempt to either find projects like yours or build a group which could detail the concept. I am glad to see a team already putting work into this.

I have read your narrative and it does look like something the DoE should fund.

I do realize that Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion is still not typically commercially viable. The point in using such a structure is that a deep penetrating hull would help convert liquid CO2 into hydrate by using the pressure of the ocean. If a hull can reach down to the hydrate forming depth, would there still be a need for bags? 

If such a hull was to be used for low-cost/high throughput CO2 processing, why not go ahead and use it for thermal energy conversion. Also, Solar/Thermal potential, as you know, is another energy input that should be exploited. Potentially, huge Stirling engines running off the these 2 thermal sources could be installed and the resulting power used for ocean based large-scale CCS/cooling or on shore power grid feed. 

Are you free to give details on your patent claims? I think your concept has a lot ofinherentflexibility and I do hope to see your proposed trial get approved.

Thanks,

Michael



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

RE: Easy ideal fluid RE: [geo] Deep ocean disposal

[markcapron]

Michael,

Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion has yet to be proven economic after many decades of trial. However, the numbers appear reasonable for the production of electricity from biomethane. Ocean Algal Afforestation would produce90+%pure biomethane, 90+% pure CO2 to sequester, and the nutrients for sustaining the ocean macroalgae forests.

If the biomethane were converted to electricity with carbon capture, 2,000,000 km2 of ocean forest would produce 5,500,000,000 tons of storage-ready CO2 per year. The renewable electricity may be better employed displacing fossil CO2 production and earning money. If the electricity were employed in the Electrodeposition process, it would not be available for sale.

Mark E. Capron, PEOxnard, Californiawww.PODenergy.org



 Original Message Subject: Re: Easy ideal fluid RE: [geo] Deep ocean disposalFrom: Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.comDate: Fri, June 03, 2011 1:13 pmTo: geoengineering@googlegroups.comCc: r...@llnl.gov, "s.sal...@ed.ac.uk" s.sal...@ed.ac.uk;, kcaldeira-gmail kcalde...@gmail.com, "andrew.lock...@gmail.com"andrew.lock...@gmail.comLarge scale CO2 hydrate production and deposition may beexpedited through the use of a large scale Ocean Thermal Conversion plantpositioned over the target sequestration trough. Here is a paper outlining such a system (Fig. 30).http://www.wolfhilbertz.com/downloads/1979/hilbertz_IEEE_1979.pdf

This type ofinstillation could have a number of second/third level advantages. I could list a half dozen, however the additionaladvantages should be obvious.Dr. Rau has compiled work which goes beyond Hilbertz yet I have to leave that to Greg to explain.

Thanks, 

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/QS0zZTZSVVIwek1K.To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.


Stephen - We can make the perfect fluid described by Ken, thus addressing Andrew's concerns. I would call your self-healing lake lid "Plan B." I've attached a 31-page proposal narrative for "Plan C." Plan C is producing CO2 hydrate in geotextile containers at depths below 500 meters. The Plan B, liquid CO2lakes, require depths in excess of 3,000 m. (At shallower depths, liquid CO2 is less dense than seawater. Average ocean depth is 3,800 meters.)

The ideal fluid is a composite consisting of "pillows" which are geotextile bags filled with water that is slightly saltier than the ambient seawater, but not so much salt as to be denser than the liquid CO2.The pillows will act like a liquidby pressing up against each other,leaving onlyvery small spaces for the CO2 and the seawater to make contact. We can preposition penetrations for adding or removing liquid CO2, if you don't want to test the pillow toughness by inserting probes throughthe pillowlayer. Thesame kinds of plastics discussed in the attached narrative would be good for the pillows.The lack ofultraviolet light and the cool temperatures favor the geotextiles lasting for thousands of years.

There are all kinds of questions to explore: Will hydrates from in the spaces between the pillows? (Hydrates are denser than the liquid CO2 and drop to the bottom.) Can we arrange the lake to become a solid mass of hydrate with the pillow covers? Will osmosis draw CO2 into the pillows? Howmight the lake affect nearby sea life?If we make a solid mass of hydrate, how long before marine snowand the creatures that live in it have reestablished a new sea floor which covers andcontains the CO2-hydrate for millions of years?

We should have carbon storage Plans B, C, D, ... to back up Geologic Storage. While it appears Geologic Storage will work for a reasonable volume, there a plenty of places without good Geologic Storage resources: Japan, Hawaii, ... We cannot be sure the private property rights,monitoring,and liability issues can be worked out at sufficient locations. As explained in the attached narrative, monitoring and patching containers on the seafloor is relatively easy. (Relative to monitoring and patching Geologic Storage.)



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

RE: [geo] FW: A Scientific Summary for Policymakers on Ocean Fertilization

[markcapron]

Mike,

Thanks for sending the Ocean Fertilization study. Also note that Scientific American, Feb-11, pg 54,has "The Blue Food Revolution" explaining the need for and controversies of fish farming. 

Perhaps we should combine aspects of Ocean Fertilization and fish Aquaculture to address Climate, Food,Energy, and Species Diversityin one concept.Current fish farming concepts are like cattle, pig, or chicken feedlots without the supporting herbiculture. Thediscussed concepts of Ocean Fertilization are somewhat the equivalent ofterrestrial high-intensity herbiculture.

A blended approach would recycle the herbiculture nutrientsquickly (months, rather than decades) and locally (10 kilometershorizontally rather than 1,000 kilometers).One such blended approach isOcean Algal Afforestation. Ocean Algal Afforestation is the equivalent of terrestrial forestry but managed to improve species diversity while skimming off energy and food and sending carbon dioxide (from the air) to secure contained sequestration.

Mark E. Capron, PEOxnard, Californiawww.PODenergy.org



 Original Message Subject: [geo] FW: A Scientific Summary for Policymakers on OceanFertilizationFrom: Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.netDate: Tue, January 25, 2011 7:31 amTo: Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.comFrom: Henrik Enevoldsen [mailto:h.enevold...@bio.ku.dk] Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 9:00 AMSubject: RE: A Scientific Summary for Policymakers on Ocean FertilizationANNOUNCEMENT (for wider distribution as appropriate):Dear friends,A Scientific Summary for Policymakers on Ocean Fertilization, commissioned by the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO and prepared with the assistance of the Surface Ocean Lower Atmosphere Study (SOLAS), is now available through online and in print. The Summary considers the practicalities, opportunities and threats associated with large-scale ocean fertilization. The Summary for Policymakers is available for download at http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001906/190674e.pdfTo request a print copy please contact Kathy Tedesco at IOC-UNESCO (k.tede...@unesco.org) or Emily Breviere at SOLAS (ebrevi...@ifm-geomar.de).Best regards, Henrik EnevoldsenIntergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Freeze oil leak, napkin level feasibility

[markcapron]

Mike - It appears"napkin" feasible to freeze the oil leak with 100 - 500 kg per minute of liquid nitrogen. That would involve a few tanker trucks of liquid nitrogen, a lot of hose,and attaching nitrogenrelease pipes to the existing pipe.

If we cannot round up enough liquid nitrogen, liquid natural gas might work, but would require collecting and flaring the warmed up natural gas.

Background - Innocentive.com and others are running a "no prize" challenge for suggestions on plugging theBritish Petroleum oilleak at about 1,500 meters deep in the Gulf of Mexico.

Mark E. Capron, PEOxnard, Californiawww.PODenergy.org



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.




Freeze the oil, May1-10.xls
Description: application/msexcel

[geo] Continuous diatom blooms and Nualgi

[markcapron]

M V Bhaskar,

Do you have a feel for how well the Nualgi mix would recycle in an open-ocean bacterial anaerobic digestion process? With bacterial anaerobic digestion, you should be able to use Nualgi to start a bloom and then keep the bloom going by recycling the nutrients.

Does your success targeting diatoms with Nualgi suggest you could make other nutrient blends that would suit macro-algae or other aquatic plants?

Mark E. Capron, PEOxnard, Californiawww.PODenergy.org



 Original Message Subject: [geo] Re: The Royal Society: Geoengineering: a brave newworld? 19 January 2010From: M V Bhaskar bhaskarmv...@gmail.comDate: Sat, November 07, 2009 2:53 amTo: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.comHi EveryoneI joined this group today and this is my first post.We are working on a very specific solution of using Diatom Algae tosolve many problems.I have been reading about the issue of Ocean Fertilization for thepast 1 year and find that there is some ambiguity in the literature.The intention seems to be to cause bloom of Diatom Algae but the wordphytoplankton is used more often.While Diatoms are phytoplankton, there are many other phytoplanktonother than diatoms.The latest iron fertilization experiment - LOHAFEX is considered afailure because it could not cause a bloom of Diatoms using IronSulphate.The post below says -fertilising the oceans with nutrients in order to produce more phytoplankton to soak up atmospheric carbon dioxide.We are being more focussed by proposing the use of silica and micronutrients all in nano size to cause a bloom of Diatom Algae.Our product is patented in US, # 7585898, Composition for growth ofDiatom Algae, Mr. Thothathri Sampath Kumar, Bangalore, India.http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1Sect2=HITOFFd=PALLp=1u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htmr=1f=Gl=50s1=7585898.PN.OS=PN/7585898RS=PN/7585898Nualgi contains Silica and all the micro nutrients required by DiatomAlgae - Iron, Manganese, Zinc, Cobalt, Molybdenum, Sulfur, Calcium,Boron, Potassium, Magnesium, Chlorine. The powder is stable in waterfor a long time and the nano particles mix and spread out into watervery easily.Thus Nualgi is a very good substitute for simple Hematite ore or Ironsulphate thats been used in the Ocean Iron Fertilization experimentstill date.Diatoms not only absorb CO2, they also consume nutrients - Nitrogenand phosphorus, increase Dissolved Oxygen in water and are the naturalfood for fish.Therefore a controlled and steady bloom of Diatoms can be used tosolve many problems - low DO level in water, low DO level causes fishkills in small water bodies and dead zones in oceans. In fact low DOlevel is caused by other Phytoplankton - Cyanobacteria (Blue GreenAlgae) and Dinoflagallates, when they crash. A steady bloom of Diatomscan prevent the excess bloom of harmful and not so useful algae.We have been solving blue green algal blooms in fresh water lakes inIndia using Diatom Algae.Dinoflagallates cause Red Tides.We are confident that Red Tides too can be controlled using Diatoms.Fish population in the oceans is declining, Diatoms are the naturalfood for fish - diatoms are consumed by Zooplankton and these by fish.I have seen a report that the fish population of the oceans hasreduced from about 7 billion tons 200 years ago to 2 billion tons atpresent, but could not confirm the numbers. Diatoms can help restorethe fish population and the carbon in the form of Calcium Carbonate inthe bones of the fish would also help sequester.I look forward to a debate on the issue of Diatoms vs otherphytoplankton and Nualgi vs other micro nutrients.best regardsM V BhaskarKadambari Consultants Pvt LtdHyderabad. India+91 92465 08213www.kadambari.netwww.nualgi.com/ne.nualgi.blogspot.comPost on Oilgae blog - http://www.oilgae.com/blog/2009/10/nualgi-algae-nutrient-that-cleans.html
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group.  To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com  To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com  For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Vote on Manchester Report

[markcapron]

Hi guys,

You might want to vote-in on the Manchester Report at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/page/2009/jul/13/1.

I recommend the Dr. Hansensupported Thorium Reactors. I've attached my MSWord summary of all the presentations.

Stephen, Timand I finished out of the top ten voting, butyou canview1-minute videos, which were taken after the 15-minute presentation. I'm planning to make a .pdf of the "notes" from my PowerPoint. Let me know if you would like the 7 MB PowerPoint or a hopefully smaller .pdf. I am suggesting a potential compromise on the developed-developing world impasse on legacy carbon. You might want to promote the concept to elected representatives in time to help China and India agree with the US and Europe at the Copenhagen meeting in December.

Mark E. Capron, PE
Oxnard, California
www.PODenergy.org
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group.  To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com  To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com  For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Manchester rpt summaries.doc
Description: MS-Word document

[geo] Treating SO2 aerosol addiction

[markcapron]

Andrew  Mike,

It appears humans are already engineering a "balance" of SO2 and CO2 emissions.That is, byblasting the cooling SO2 and the warming CO2 from smoke stacks, we are avoiding the fullimpacts of fossil CO2.Too bad the "balance" isn't sustainable. Perhaps funding for geo-engineering research wouldbeacceptable to the general public, ifthe suggested solutions addressed "weaning off SO2 and CO2" in a sustainable manner.

For example, we could postulate solar powered processes with the potential to pull CO2 from the air for permanent sequestration. That allows the possibility forcarbon tax or cap  trade to achieve 2 tons of C removed for every 1 ton of fossil C emitted, while SO2 release remains. Ideally, theprocess wouldalso concentrate the solar energy intoan existing, but renewable, fuel with existing infrastructure. By offering both sequestration andrenewable energy production simultaneously, therenewable energy production would be directly subsidized by fossil carbon emitters.

As a first check,one would build contrasting computer models: 1)allelectricity production fossil emissions are captured directly at thestackand sequestered by2050; or 2) ramped to 2050, fossil emissions (all kinds) are captured from air. SO2 release via stacks and exhaust pipescontinues with the CO2 release. The capture and sequestration is paid for by the emitters and the capture generates renewable CH4 at a 50:50 volume ratio with the captured CO2; or 3) similar to 2) but start with the emitters paying to sequester 0.5 ton of C per 1 ton of CO2 emitted and gradually moving toward paying to sequester 3 tons per 1 ton emitted.

Actually, this first check should be eligible for the funding now flowing into geologic carbon storage (aka carbon capture  storage (CCS), clean coal, etc.) research.

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



 Original Message Subject: [geo] Re: Post on geoengineering - do not keep attackingHansen or others who disagree youFrom: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.comDate: Sun, April 05, 2009 2:58 amTo: Peter Read pre...@attglobal.netCc: mmacc...@comcast.net, GeoengineeringGeoengineering@googlegroups.com, Tom Wigley wig...@ucar.edu, JohnNissen j...@cloudworld.co.uk, John Gorman gorm...@waitrose.comAs I understand it, a common process for CCS from coal plant is to burn the coal in oxygen-enhanced air, and then sequester the entire stack emissions. (not that they'd be stack emissions anymore, but that's semantics). This would preclude the application of your suggested technique in that instance. Further, any 'wet' processes will tend to scrub SO2 as it has a high affinity for water (from my high-school chemistry knowledge). 

In any event, the cooling effect of SO2 in the troposphere is short-lived (although important, as my previous posts have suggested). Further, tropospheric SO2 contributes to acid rain significantly, and to dry deposition (which causes erosion of buildings and, I believe, respiratory problems.) It's pretty nasty stuff, and the stratosphere seems by far a better place for it.

Nevertheless, as I've discussed previously, the often-ignored consequence of mitigation is a significant reduction in such tropospheric aerosols will 'unmask' the true extent of global warming. What's often ignored in this debate, is that an immediate halt to emissions would make AGW significantly worse, not better. We're all global climate junkies, hooked on pollution and emissions to keep our planet together - whilst those same emissions destroy it.

I don't think this problem has been given half enough attention.A
2009/4/4 Peter Read pre...@attglobal.net


A subversive thought
Is not the logical thing to do to continue burning sulphurous coal and rely on CCS together with biotic capture to remove the CO2 ?
Or does amine washing of flue gases remove sulphur (SO2?) as well as CO2 ?
Peter




- Original Message - 
From: Mike MacCracken 
To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com ; John Gorman 
Cc: Geoengineering ; Tom Wigley ; John Nissen 
Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 4:57 AM
Subject:[geo] Re: Post on geoengineering - do not keep attacking Hansen or others who disagree you
Dear Andrew—My talks in Copenhagen covered a lot of these points. I have attached the two abstracts—and am working on getting papers written up.Mike MacCrackenOn 4/3/09 6:12 AM, "Andrew Lockley" andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote:
An important effect which is often ignored when debating emissions reduction is the tropospheric aerosols component. If CO2 emissions fall, so will SO2 emissions (which cause tropospheric reflective aerosols). This aerosol loss will 'unmask' the real forcing from existing CO2. As a consequence, emissions reduction will actually cause a substantial RISE in radiative forcing. This effect will persist as long as does the CO2, unless we geoengineer the aerosols back in.It seems to me that most people looking at this issue have ignored this effect - including some scientists. Even without 

[geo] Re: Crop residue ocean permanent sequestration

[markcapron]

Stuart,

Why bundle and stash terrestrial straw. Growing straw requires substantial fresh water and nutrients. You could bundle and stash algae instead. How about sargassum or kelp? A macro-algae can be bundled in large mesh "tea bags" with much of the water being squeezed out during the bundling process.

Then, as long as you've got bundles of biomass, why not separate the nutrients from the carbon before you stash the carbon? That way, you can recycle the nutrients back to the ocean surface for growing more biomass. High-pressure anaerobic digestion will release the carbon in two separate streams; one gaseous CH4, one dissolved CO2, which easily converts to liquid CO2 at typical ocean temperatures and pressures.

Would you or others be interested in a California Energy Commission grant to run a few bench experiments on high-pressure anaerobic digestion? I can send a draft abstract.

Mark E. Capron, PE
Oxnard, California
www.PODenergy.org
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group.  To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com  To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com  For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Re: Ace Inventor Thinks He Can Rain in Global Warming

[markcapron]

Alvia  Stephen - One energy efficient arrangement would involve wind pumps on windy dry coasts. Direct wind is a great way to pump water, especially when you want to move more water to obtain more evaporation at higher wind speeds. You don't spray the water into the air, that is not energy efficient. Instead, you incorporate a vertical water lifting pipe up the side of a mountain and inside the wind turbine pylon. Then you drop the water as small droplets into the air and into waterfalls down the side of the mountain.

At 100% evaporation efficiency and 70% pump efficiency a 100 meter lift of 10,000 cubic meters per second requires 10,000 MW. Unfortunately, we need to figure out what to do with the accumulating tons of salt, on the order of 10 million cubic metes per year.Or weuse more energy at some lower evaporation efficiency and attempt to disperse the brine in an environmentally acceptable fashion. Typical 100 meter tall wind turbines have nominal power ratings of 2 - 4 MW.

I wonder if we could convince California ski resorts and agribusinessesto fund a few large scale trials in hopes of getting more snow and rain. The process is also an ocean desalting project for dry coasts with on-shore winds.

Mark E. Capron, PE (Civil Engineer with 'day job' in water, recycled water, and wastewater)
Oxnard, California
www.PODenergy.org 



 Original Message Subject: [geo] Re: Ace Inventor Thinks He Can Rain in Global WarmingFrom: Stephen Salter s.sal...@ed.ac.ukDate: Sat, December 20, 2008 3:15 amTo: agask...@nc.rr.comCc: geoengineering@googlegroups.comHi AllThe evaporation from the Ron Ace spray will certainly remove latent heat from the atmosphere but exactly the same amount of heat will be returned when the vapour condenses as rain somewhere else. While it remains as water vapour it will be adding to amount of the greenhouse gases and so working in the wrong direction. However if it condenses to form clouds where there were none before then these will reflect solar energy back out to space and will be doing what we want. If it adds to the liquid water content of existing clouds by making the drops in them bigger it will make them less reflective. Finally the cooling of the lower atmosphere will make it more stable and will reduce normal evaporation from the sea downwind of the spray source so reducing both vapour and cloud cover. One large eddy study, by a top-class atmospheric physicist who wishes to remain anonymous for fear of ridicule from less able ones, showed that the stability effect overrode the evaporation one but it would be useful to compare results. We need to know the balance between all four effects.If anyone knows Ron's email please point him to the five files inhttp://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Failed%20rain%20maker/Stephen SalterEmeritus Professor of Engineering DesignSchool of Engineering and ElectronicsUniversity of EdinburghMayfield RoadEdinburgh EH9 3JLScotlandtel +44 131 650 5704fax +44 131 650 5702Mobile 07795 203 195s.sal...@ed.ac.ukhttp://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs Alvia Gaskill wrote: I don't think this would make any clouds at all. You can have very  humid air and no clouds or rain. As far as the evaporation of water  itself releasing sufficient IR to space, the levels of the water  injection are too low: 20-200ft. Finally, I don't think the energy  costs are correctly estimated. It should take a lot more than the  electricity from a 550MW power plant to simulate the flow of the  Mississippi River. Am I right or all wet, so to speak?  http://www.physorg.com/news148887530.html  Inventor's 'refrigeration system' for planet shows promise, but scientists are skeptical December 19th, 2008 in Space  Earth science / Earth Sciences *Ron Ace says that his breakthrough moments have come at unexpected  times - while he lay in bed, eased his aging Cadillac across the  Chesapeake Bay Bridge or steered a tractor around his rustic,  five-acre property.* In the seclusion of his Maryland home, Ace has spent three years glued  to the Internet, studying the Earth's climate cycles and careening  from one epiphany to another - a 69-year-old loner with the moxie to  try to solve one of the greatest threats to mankind. Now, backed by a computer model, the little-known inventor is making  public a U.S. patent petition for what he calls the most "practical,  nontoxic, affordable, rapidly achievable" and beneficial way to curb  global warming and a resulting catastrophic ocean rise. Spray gigatons of seawater into the air, mainly in the Northern  Hemisphere, and let Mother Nature do the rest, he says. The evaporating water, Ace said, would cool the Earth in multiple  ways: First, the sprayed droplets would transform to water vapor, a  change that absorbs thermal energy near ground level; then the rising  vapor would condense into sunlight-reflecting clouds and cooling rain,  releasing much of the stored energy into space in the form of infrared  radiation. McClatchy Newspapers has 

[geo] Re: the science and technology of climate cooling ???

[markcapron]

Dear Mike, 

In your analogy Natural Ocean Bacterial Anaerobic Digestion (NOBAD, aka PODenergy) is a sailplane staying aloft indefinitely. It stays aloft by simultaneously capturing carbon from air for easy reliable sequestrationand producing energy in a form, pure biomethane, which already has substantial infrastructure.

It isn't the typical geoengineering, which must be maintained to avoid a crash even as it allows more acidic oceans.

It isnt the typical renewable energy production that cannot reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.

It is exceptionally cheap to deploy, meaning itmightbe quick enough.The economics questions are mostly in the biomass harvesting operations.

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



 Original Message Subject: [geo] Re: the science and technology of climate cooling ???From: Mike MacCracken [EMAIL PROTECTED]Date: Tue, November 25, 2008 10:22 amTo: John Nissen [EMAIL PROTECTED], David Schnare[EMAIL PROTECTED]Cc: Ken Caldeira [EMAIL PROTECTED],, GeoengineeringGeoengineering@googlegroups.com, Bob Watson 

[geo] Re: Sequestration

[markcapron]

Dan,

What is the starting point concentration for the $40 per ton to convert gaseous CO2 to liquid CO2? The 400 ppm of atmosphere, the 10% of natural gas fuel exhaust, the 20% of coal fueled exhaust, or 100% CO2? Starting from 100% CO2 only needs compression to about 60 bar at 10 degrees C with an energy cost of about 60 kWh per ton or about $6 per ton.

Thereafter one pumps the liquid against very little differential density. If the end of the pipe were about 7,000 meters deep in seawater, it would syphon down from 600 meters deep.

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


 Original Message Subject: [geo] Re: SequestrationFrom: "Dan Whaley"