RE: [geo] McDermott White Paper (2002) on accelerated carbonate weathering as a CCS approach
My responses below in caps. -Greg From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Ronal W. Larson [rongretlar...@comcast.net] Sent: Saturday, December 14, 2013 5:29 PM To: Greg Rau Cc: Geoengineering; esher...@carbonzeroinstitute.org Subject: Re: [geo] McDermott White Paper (2002) on accelerated carbonate weathering as a CCS approach Greg and list (and acknowledge several other commentators) Thanks. Few inserts below. For others - the term AWL is Accelerated Weathering of Limestone. Three general questions only comments added to the original three: a. At this site: http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_research/Rau_Knauss.html You show increasing acidification, but much slower than the standard approach. Now, at the $30 price, we can really move towards alkalinity? YES, SEE FIGURES 2 (DATA) AND 3 (GENERAL MODEL) RE ALKALINITY IN THE ATTACHED 2011 PAPER (PREVISOUSLY PAYWALLED). b. Why only sea water and coastal areas? This restriction is not seen in the balancing equations given by Ken and yours DISSOLVED INORGANIC CARBON (NATURAL OR ARTIFICIAL) ONLY EXISTS IN SOLUTION IN RELATIVELY DILUTE CONCENTRATIONS. THEREFORE, TO STORE LOTS OF CARBON YOU NEED LOTS OF WATER. SINCE 70% OF THE EARTH'S SURFACE IS SEAWATER, THIS IS THE LOW HANGING FRUIT FOR AWL. BUT IF YOU'VE GOT SOME OTHER MASSIVE, NON-POTABLE WATER SOURCE AVAILABLE (SALINE AQUIFERS), BE MY GUEST. c. At the site http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM30u95uC0c, given by you today, there is the added production of H2 and a cost over $100/tonne CO2. Is this approach not as favored as the one below? THE CORRECT VIDEO LINK FOR WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT (POINT SOURCE CO2) IS HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R4fSv3-_M0&feature=youtu.be IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT A RELATED, DIRECT AIR CO2 REMOVAL SCHEME PLUS SUPERGREEN H2 PRODUCTION THEN GO HERE: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/05/30/1222358110.full.pdf http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM30u95uC0c&feature=youtu.be http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/20/planId/1304119 On Dec 13, 2013, at 9:39 PM, Greg Rau mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net>> wrote: In response to numbered topics: 1) We think that a significant # of coast power plant CO2 could be mitigated for <$30/tonne CO2. Why hasn't this been pursued? - ask DOE who have declined every proposal we've offered. RWL: Bummer. Maybe this dialog will open the topic again. I also think biochar can beat the same $30 price (using any accounting period greater than a year or two), because of important additional out-year advantages, and the chance to produce, not consume, energy. 2) Actually it could be used for CDR: biomass + O2 + heat --> energy + CO2 ---> CO2 + seawater + limestone ---> ocean alkalinity. I'm a little leery about doing analogous AWL downstream from pyrolysis given all of the nasty volatiles generated that would wind up in the ocean. For similar reasons NG-fired would be preferred over coal-fired power plants for AWL. [RWL: I want to replace your combustion equation: biomass + O2 + heat --> energy + CO2 ---> CO2 + seawater + limestone ---> ocean alkalinity. with one for pyrolysis (plus use of the pyrolysis gases) biomass + heat --> energy + char + CO2 ---> char + CO2 + seawater + limestone ---> char + ocean alkalinity. Getting rid of a larger proportion of CO2 would be a major plus - and apparently at not much greater cost. I am not claiming that combined biochar + AWL comes with no additional costs, but the per tonne cost may not change much. My reading says that pyrolysis can provides fewer volatiles than combustion (if the pyrolysis gases are being used productively - as for electrical production). One friend (Alex English) has reported on a retrofit pyrolysis system for heating (plus char) that was cleaner than the replaced NG. 3) Adding alkalinity to the the ocean could to wonders for offseting the effects of ocean acidification. So biomass ---> biochar/land fertility, or biomass ---> ocean alkalinity/OA mitigation? Why not both, AWL can handle coastal biomass energy, biochar can handle inland biomass energy: trillions of dollars in benefits for both camps. Deal? I'll have my people to draw up the paperwork and we'll contact our friends at the WTO ;-) [RWL: Deal. I’ll start contacting a few of my billionaire friends - as soon as you give the go-ahead. Greg From: Ronal W. Larson mailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net>> To: Ken Caldeira mailto:kcalde...@gmail.com>>; Greg Rau mailto:r...@llnl.gov>> Cc: Keith Henson mailto:hkeithhen...@gmail.com>>; Elton Sherwin mailto:esher...@carbonzeroinstitute.org>>; "tim.kru...@oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk<mailto:tim.kru...@oxfordmarti
Re: [geo] McDermott White Paper (2002) on accelerated carbonate weathering as a CCS approach
Greg and list (and acknowledge several other commentators) Thanks. Few inserts below. For others - the term AWL is Accelerated Weathering of Limestone. Three general questions only comments added to the original three: a. At this site: http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_research/Rau_Knauss.html You show increasing acidification, but much slower than the standard approach. Now, at the $30 price, we can really move towards alkalinity? b. Why only sea water and coastal areas? This restriction is not seen in the balancing equations given by Ken and yourself. c. At the site http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM30u95uC0c, given by you today, there is the added production of H2 and a cost over $100/tonne CO2. Is this approach not as favored as the one below? On Dec 13, 2013, at 9:39 PM, Greg Rau wrote: > In response to numbered topics: > 1) We think that a significant # of coast power plant CO2 could be mitigated > for <$30/tonne CO2. Why hasn't this been pursued? - ask DOE who have declined > every proposal we've offered. RWL: Bummer. Maybe this dialog will open the topic again. I also think biochar can beat the same $30 price (using any accounting period greater than a year or two), because of important additional out-year advantages, and the chance to produce, not consume, energy. > > 2) Actually it could be used for CDR: biomass + O2 + heat --> energy + CO2 > ---> CO2 + seawater + limestone ---> ocean alkalinity. I'm a little leery > about doing analogous AWL downstream from pyrolysis given all of the nasty > volatiles generated that would wind up in the ocean. For similar reasons > NG-fired would be preferred over coal-fired power plants for AWL. [RWL: I want to replace your combustion equation: biomass + O2 + heat --> energy + CO2 ---> CO2 + seawater + limestone ---> ocean alkalinity. with one for pyrolysis (plus use of the pyrolysis gases) biomass + heat --> energy + char + CO2 ---> char + CO2 + seawater + limestone ---> char + ocean alkalinity. Getting rid of a larger proportion of CO2 would be a major plus - and apparently at not much greater cost. I am not claiming that combined biochar + AWL comes with no additional costs, but the per tonne cost may not change much. My reading says that pyrolysis can provides fewer volatiles than combustion (if the pyrolysis gases are being used productively - as for electrical production). One friend (Alex English) has reported on a retrofit pyrolysis system for heating (plus char) that was cleaner than the replaced NG. > > 3) Adding alkalinity to the the ocean could to wonders for offseting the > effects of ocean acidification. So biomass ---> biochar/land fertility, or > biomass ---> ocean alkalinity/OA mitigation? Why not both, AWL can handle > coastal biomass energy, biochar can handle inland biomass energy: trillions > of dollars in benefits for both camps. Deal? I'll have my people to draw up > the paperwork and we'll contact our friends at the WTO ;-) [RWL: Deal. I’ll start contacting a few of my billionaire friends - as soon as you give the go-ahead. > > Greg > > From: Ronal W. Larson > To: Ken Caldeira ; Greg Rau > Cc: Keith Henson ; Elton Sherwin > ; "tim.kru...@oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk" > ; Geoengineering > ; Andrew Lockley > Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 2:40 PM > Subject: Re: [geo] McDermott White Paper (2002) on accelerated carbonate > weathering as a CCS approach > > Ken, list etal (adding Greg Rau, who probably is closest to this) > > 1. The price per ton CO2 given at the bottom of Table 3 in the McDermott > paper given by Ken a few days ago came to $20.70/ton CO2. Converting to 2013 > $ (about 30% more over the 2001 $ used), metric units and carbon (rather > than CO2, using the ratio 44/12) gives about $100/Tonne C today. This is, I > believe, quite attractive compared to other numbers being floated around for > CCS. > I have been asked by a friend whether there has been any > commercialization attempt at this since 2002 - and if not why not? > This is the only question; the next two items are just comments - > translating this over to the world of biochar. > > 2. This doesn’t yet fall into the category of CDR, but could with biomass > replacing coal (then probably should not be called BECCS or BECS, since the > term CCS seems best reserved for underground CO2 storage.). Needing smaller > plants to keep biomass transport cost down, that results in lower efficiency, > has anybody estimated a CDR costing? Maybe $125-$150/tonne C? (Asking for > a scaling factor when plant size falls by a factor of 10) Note this could > be the back end as well of some bioma
Re: [geo] McDermott White Paper (2002) on accelerated carbonate weathering as a CCS approach
Andrew, Greg, and list: 1. Just half an hour before your message, I received the following message from Dr. Tom Goreau (a friend and collaborator) which announces one of the better short (15 minute) videos I have seen on biochar (and there are hundreds): The video on Cool Planet Biochar at the Harvard Community Garden is ready to post! Thanks for your help in getting this link out. http://youtu.be/8EEMknQSjD4 Thomas J. Goreau, PhD President, Global Coral Reef Alliance President, Biorock Technology Inc. Coordinator, United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development Small Island Developing States Partnership in New Sustainable Technologies 37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139 gor...@bestweb.net www.globalcoral.org Skype: tomgoreau Tel: (1) 617-864-4226 [RWL: Dr. Goreau (mainly now active in coral issues -explaining why excess atmospheric carbon is important to him) has himself done extensive soil work in the Amazon. He lives blocks from this project.] 2. You also just sent in a message you didn’t like from Dr. Rachel Smolker. I will respond shortly to that. I couple the topics since Dr. Smolker is one of the two main critics of biochar (which is mentioned by name twice in her latest piece). Needless to say, I don’t think she, nor Dr. Vandana Shiva, have done anything at all like what is shown and talked about in the video. I have never read/seen either talk about their personal experiences with biochar. In contrast, the Harvard student in the video talks about his pepper plants being 4 times larger. Ron On Dec 14, 2013, at 3:31 AM, Andrew Lockley wrote: > I'm not sure any of these approaches currently compare well to soil > conservation, energy efficiency, etc., which probably explains the lack of > development. > > One point about detailed costs: transport isn't necessarily much of a problem > if you're near a river. Plastic wrapped bales of biomass or char probably > will float to the plant eventually - and the only cost is a boatman to free > up tangled bales once in a while. This helps keep plant scale up. > > As always, biomass burning has to be compared with the side benefits from > char, which provide additional value. These may be highly non homogeneous. > > A > > On Dec 14, 2013 4:39 AM, "Greg Rau" wrote: > In response to numbered topics: > 1) We think that a significant # of coast power plant CO2 could be mitigated > for <$30/tonne CO2. Why hasn't this been pursued? - ask DOE who have declined > every proposal we've offered. > > 2) Actually it could be used for CDR: biomass + O2 + heat --> energy + CO2 > ---> CO2 + seawater + limestone ---> ocean alkalinity. I'm a little leery > about doing analogous AWL downstream from pyrolysis given all of the nasty > volatiles generated that would wind up in the ocean. For similar reasons > NG-fired would be preferred over coal-fired power plants for AWL. > > 3) Adding alkalinity to the the ocean could to wonders for offseting the > effects of ocean acidification. So biomass ---> biochar/land fertility, or > biomass ---> ocean alkalinity/OA mitigation? Why not both, AWL can handle > coastal biomass energy, biochar can handle inland biomass energy: trillions > of dollars in benefits for both camps. Deal? I'll have my people to draw up > the paperwork and we'll contact our friends at the WTO ;-) > > Greg > > From: Ronal W. Larson > To: Ken Caldeira ; Greg Rau > Cc: Keith Henson ; Elton Sherwin > ; "tim.kru...@oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk" > ; Geoengineering > ; Andrew Lockley > Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 2:40 PM > Subject: Re: [geo] McDermott White Paper (2002) on accelerated carbonate > weathering as a CCS approach > > Ken, list etal (adding Greg Rau, who probably is closest to this) > > 1. The price per ton CO2 given at the bottom of Table 3 in the McDermott > paper given by Ken a few days ago came to $20.70/ton CO2. Converting to 2013 > $ (about 30% more over the 2001 $ used), metric units and carbon (rather > than CO2, using the ratio 44/12) gives about $100/Tonne C today. This is, I > believe, quite attractive compared to other numbers being floated around for > CCS. > I have been asked by a friend whether there has been any > commercialization attempt at this since 2002 - and if not why not? > This is the only question; the next two items are just comments - > translating this over to the world of biochar. > > 2. This doesn’t yet fall into the category of CDR, but could with biomass > replacing coal (then probably should not be called BECCS or BECS, since the > term CCS seems best reserved for underground CO2 storage.). Needing smaller > plants to keep biomass transport cost
Re: [geo] McDermott White Paper (2002) on accelerated carbonate weathering as a CCS approach
I'm not sure any of these approaches currently compare well to soil conservation, energy efficiency, etc., which probably explains the lack of development. One point about detailed costs: transport isn't necessarily much of a problem if you're near a river. Plastic wrapped bales of biomass or char probably will float to the plant eventually - and the only cost is a boatman to free up tangled bales once in a while. This helps keep plant scale up. As always, biomass burning has to be compared with the side benefits from char, which provide additional value. These may be highly non homogeneous. A On Dec 14, 2013 4:39 AM, "Greg Rau" wrote: > In response to numbered topics: > 1) We think that a significant # of coast power plant CO2 could be > mitigated for <$30/tonne CO2. Why hasn't this been pursued? - ask DOE who > have declined every proposal we've offered. > > 2) Actually it could be used for CDR: biomass + O2 + heat --> energy + CO2 > ---> CO2 + seawater + limestone ---> ocean alkalinity. I'm a little leery > about doing analogous AWL downstream from pyrolysis given all of the nasty > volatiles generated that would wind up in the ocean. For similar reasons > NG-fired would be preferred over coal-fired power plants for AWL. > > 3) Adding alkalinity to the the ocean could to wonders for offseting the > effects of ocean acidification. So biomass ---> biochar/land fertility, or > biomass ---> ocean alkalinity/OA mitigation? Why not both, AWL can handle > coastal biomass energy, biochar can handle inland biomass energy: trillions > of dollars in benefits for both camps. Deal? I'll have my people to draw up > the paperwork and we'll contact our friends at the WTO ;-) > > Greg > > -- > *From:* Ronal W. Larson > *To:* Ken Caldeira ; Greg Rau > *Cc:* Keith Henson ; Elton Sherwin < > esher...@carbonzeroinstitute.org>; "tim.kru...@oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk" < > tim.kru...@oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk>; Geoengineering < > geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; Andrew Lockley > > *Sent:* Friday, December 13, 2013 2:40 PM > *Subject:* Re: [geo] McDermott White Paper (2002) on accelerated > carbonate weathering as a CCS approach > > Ken, list etal (adding Greg Rau, who probably is closest to this) > > 1. The price per ton CO2 given at the bottom of Table 3 in the McDermott > paper given by Ken a few days ago came to $20.70/ton CO2. Converting to > 2013 $ (about 30% more over the 2001 $ used), metric units and carbon > (rather than CO2, using the ratio 44/12) gives about $100/Tonne C today. > This is, I believe, quite attractive compared to other numbers being > floated around for CCS. > I have been asked by a friend whether there has been any > commercialization attempt at this since 2002 - and if not why not? > This is the only question; the next two items are just comments - > translating this over to the world of biochar. > > 2. This doesn’t yet fall into the category of CDR, but could with biomass > replacing coal (then probably should not be called BECCS or BECS, since > the term CCS seems best reserved for underground CO2 storage.). Needing > smaller plants to keep biomass transport cost down, that results in lower > efficiency, has anybody estimated a CDR costing? Maybe $125-$150/tonne C? > (Asking for a scaling factor when plant size falls by a factor of 10) > Note this could be the back end as well of some biomass electrical > generating systems where pyrolysis rather than combustion is employed; then > about half the C in the input biomass would be released as CO2. > > 3. Because charcoal is not 100% carbon, one would have to pay less than > about $125 /tonne of char to receive a break-even sequestration credit of > $100/tonne C. (Or stated conversely, if you paid $100/tonne char, the > sequestration value should not be more than $80/tonne C (in a societal > sense, the farmer/forester, will of course try to minimize the cost of the > char > The point of these quick computations is to say that there would be > lots of farmers and foresters willing to put char in the ground if the > going rate for sequestration were roughly $100/tonne C (or $27/tonne CO2 > or $80/tonne char). That is - I am claiming the long term value to the > farmer/forester and society would exceed these “$100” numbers. > > Ron > > > On Dec 13, 2013, at 12:06 PM, Ken Caldeira > wrote: > > The basic idea is: > > CO2 (gas) + CaCO3 (solid) + H2O (liquid) --> Ca2+ + 2 HCO3- (dissolved in > the ocean) > > > > ___ > Ken Caldeira > > Carnegie Institution for Science > Dept of Global Ecology > 260 Panama Street, Stanford,
Re: [geo] McDermott White Paper (2002) on accelerated carbonate weathering as a CCS approach
In response to numbered topics: 1) We think that a significant # of coast power plant CO2 could be mitigated for <$30/tonne CO2. Why hasn't this been pursued? - ask DOE who have declined every proposal we've offered. 2) Actually it could be used for CDR: biomass + O2 + heat --> energy + CO2 ---> CO2 + seawater + limestone ---> ocean alkalinity. I'm a little leery about doing analogous AWL downstream from pyrolysis given all of the nasty volatiles generated that would wind up in the ocean. For similar reasons NG-fired would be preferred over coal-fired power plants for AWL. 3) Adding alkalinity to the the ocean could to wonders for offseting the effects of ocean acidification. So biomass ---> biochar/land fertility, or biomass ---> ocean alkalinity/OA mitigation? Why not both, AWL can handle coastal biomass energy, biochar can handle inland biomass energy: trillions of dollars in benefits for both camps. Deal? I'll have my people to draw up the paperwork and we'll contact our friends at the WTO ;-) Greg > > From: Ronal W. Larson >To: Ken Caldeira ; Greg Rau >Cc: Keith Henson ; Elton Sherwin >; "tim.kru...@oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk" >; Geoengineering >; Andrew Lockley >Sent: Friday, December 13, 2013 2:40 PM >Subject: Re: [geo] McDermott White Paper (2002) on accelerated carbonate >weathering as a CCS approach > > > >Ken, list etal (adding Greg Rau, who probably is closest to this) > > >1. The price per ton CO2 given at the bottom of Table 3 in the McDermott >paper given by Ken a few days ago came to $20.70/ton CO2. Converting to 2013 >$ (about 30% more over the 2001 $ used), metric units and carbon (rather than >CO2, using the ratio 44/12) gives about $100/Tonne C today. This is, I >believe, quite attractive compared to other numbers being floated around for >CCS. > I have been asked by a friend whether there has been any >commercialization attempt at this since 2002 - and if not why not? > This is the only question; the next two items are just comments - >translating this over to the world of biochar. > > >2. This doesn’t yet fall into the category of CDR, but could with biomass >replacing coal (then probably should not be called BECCS or BECS, since the >term CCS seems best reserved for underground CO2 storage.). Needing smaller >plants to keep biomass transport cost down, that results in lower efficiency, >has anybody estimated a CDR costing? Maybe $125-$150/tonne C? (Asking for a >scaling factor when plant size falls by a factor of 10) Note this could be >the back end as well of some biomass electrical generating systems where >pyrolysis rather than combustion is employed; then about half the C in the >input biomass would be released as CO2. > > >3. Because charcoal is not 100% carbon, one would have to pay less than >about $125 /tonne of char to receive a break-even sequestration credit of >$100/tonne C. (Or stated conversely, if you paid $100/tonne char, the >sequestration value should not be more than $80/tonne C (in a societal sense, >the farmer/forester, will of course try to minimize the cost of the char > The point of these quick computations is to say that there would be lots >of farmers and foresters willing to put char in the ground if the going rate >for sequestration were roughly $100/tonne C (or $27/tonne CO2 or $80/tonne >char). That is - I am claiming the long term value to the farmer/forester and >society would exceed these “$100” numbers. > > >Ron > > > >On Dec 13, 2013, at 12:06 PM, Ken Caldeira >wrote: > >The basic idea is: >> >> >>CO2 (gas) + CaCO3 (solid) + H2O (liquid) --> Ca2+ + 2 HCO3- (dissolved in >>the ocean) >> >> >> >> >> >> >>___ >>Ken Caldeira >> >>Carnegie Institution for Science >>Dept of Global Ecology >> >>260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA >> >>+1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab >>https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira >> >> >> >> >>On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Keith Henson wrote: >> >>Elton, could you real quickly go through the chemistry involved? >>> >>>I miss seeing how CaCO3 absorbs more CO2, but my chemistry is rusty by >>>many decades. >>> >>>Keith >>> >>> >>>On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Elton Sherwin >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> I am very interested in using limestone to sequester CO2 in power plants. >>>> This approach--and related limestone based approaches
Re: [geo] McDermott White Paper (2002) on accelerated carbonate weathering as a CCS approach
Ken, list etal (adding Greg Rau, who probably is closest to this) 1. The price per ton CO2 given at the bottom of Table 3 in the McDermott paper given by Ken a few days ago came to $20.70/ton CO2. Converting to 2013 $ (about 30% more over the 2001 $ used), metric units and carbon (rather than CO2, using the ratio 44/12) gives about $100/Tonne C today. This is, I believe, quite attractive compared to other numbers being floated around for CCS. I have been asked by a friend whether there has been any commercialization attempt at this since 2002 - and if not why not? This is the only question; the next two items are just comments - translating this over to the world of biochar. 2. This doesn’t yet fall into the category of CDR, but could with biomass replacing coal (then probably should not be called BECCS or BECS, since the term CCS seems best reserved for underground CO2 storage.). Needing smaller plants to keep biomass transport cost down, that results in lower efficiency, has anybody estimated a CDR costing? Maybe $125-$150/tonne C? (Asking for a scaling factor when plant size falls by a factor of 10) Note this could be the back end as well of some biomass electrical generating systems where pyrolysis rather than combustion is employed; then about half the C in the input biomass would be released as CO2. 3. Because charcoal is not 100% carbon, one would have to pay less than about $125 /tonne of char to receive a break-even sequestration credit of $100/tonne C. (Or stated conversely, if you paid $100/tonne char, the sequestration value should not be more than $80/tonne C (in a societal sense, the farmer/forester, will of course try to minimize the cost of the char The point of these quick computations is to say that there would be lots of farmers and foresters willing to put char in the ground if the going rate for sequestration were roughly $100/tonne C (or $27/tonne CO2 or $80/tonne char). That is - I am claiming the long term value to the farmer/forester and society would exceed these “$100” numbers. Ron On Dec 13, 2013, at 12:06 PM, Ken Caldeira wrote: > The basic idea is: > > CO2 (gas) + CaCO3 (solid) + H2O (liquid) --> Ca2+ + 2 HCO3- (dissolved in > the ocean) > > > > ___ > Ken Caldeira > > Carnegie Institution for Science > Dept of Global Ecology > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu > http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab > https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira > > > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > Elton, could you real quickly go through the chemistry involved? > > I miss seeing how CaCO3 absorbs more CO2, but my chemistry is rusty by > many decades. > > Keith > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Elton Sherwin > wrote: > > > > > > I am very interested in using limestone to sequester CO2 in power plants. > > This approach--and related limestone based approaches--seem to have promise. > > And as Ken says they look more affordable than competing technologies. > > > > > > > > Not sure how our little underfund institute can help, but let me know if I > > can. > > > > > > > > Elton Sherwin > > > > Executive Director, Carbon Zero Institute > > > > Cell: 650.823.9221 > > > > www.CarbonZeroInstitute.org > > > > > > > > From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com > > [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira > > Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2013 8:30 AM > > To: tim.kru...@oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk > > Cc: geoengineering; Andrew Lockley > > > > > > Subject: [geo] McDermott White Paper (2002) on accelerated carbonate > > weathering as a CCS approach > > > > > > > > Tim, > > > > > > > > As per your request to Andrew, attached is an analysis of using accelerated > > limestone weathering to sequester CO2 from power plant flue gases and > > dispose of it in the ocean, with the carbon acidity neutralized by the > > alkalinity provided by the calcium in the calcium carbonate. > > > > > > > > They concluded that this approach was both economically viable and had much > > lower energy overheads than did "conventional" CCS with amine scrubbers and > > suchlike. > > > > > > > > This is an area in which Greg Rau has done a lot of work, and in which I > > have done some work: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Greg_Rau/ > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > Ken > > > > > > > > PS. McDermott Technologies, Inc, used to own Babcock and Wilcox,
RE: [geo] McDermott White Paper (2002) on accelerated carbonate weathering as a CCS approach
My chemistry is as or more rusty, but isn’t HCO3- in a second equilibrium, with CO2 and water? Does increasing the HCO3- concentration push CO2 out of the ocean? 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 *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto: geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Ken Caldeira *Sent:* December-13-13 12:06 PM *To:* Keith Henson *Cc:* Elton Sherwin; tim.kru...@oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk; geoengineering; Andrew Lockley *Subject:* Re: [geo] McDermott White Paper (2002) on accelerated carbonate weathering as a CCS approach The basic idea is: CO2 (gas) + CaCO3 (solid) + H2O (liquid) --> Ca2+ + 2 HCO3- (dissolved in the ocean) ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Keith Henson wrote: Elton, could you real quickly go through the chemistry involved? I miss seeing how CaCO3 absorbs more CO2, but my chemistry is rusty by many decades. Keith On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Elton Sherwin wrote: > > > I am very interested in using limestone to sequester CO2 in power plants. > This approach--and related limestone based approaches--seem to have promise. > And as Ken says they look more affordable than competing technologies. > > > > Not sure how our little underfund institute can help, but let me know if I > can. > > > > Elton Sherwin > > Executive Director, Carbon Zero Institute > > Cell: 650.823.9221 > > www.CarbonZeroInstitute.org > > > > From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com > [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira > Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2013 8:30 AM > To: tim.kru...@oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk > Cc: geoengineering; Andrew Lockley > > > Subject: [geo] McDermott White Paper (2002) on accelerated carbonate > weathering as a CCS approach > > > > Tim, > > > > As per your request to Andrew, attached is an analysis of using accelerated > limestone weathering to sequester CO2 from power plant flue gases and > dispose of it in the ocean, with the carbon acidity neutralized by the > alkalinity provided by the calcium in the calcium carbonate. > > > > They concluded that this approach was both economically viable and had much > lower energy overheads than did "conventional" CCS with amine scrubbers and > suchlike. > > > > This is an area in which Greg Rau has done a lot of work, and in which I > have done some work: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Greg_Rau/ > > > > Best, > > > > Ken > > > > PS. McDermott Technologies, Inc, used to own Babcock and Wilcox, the > nuclear engineering company, but spun this off in 2010: > http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-McDermott_to_spin_off_BandW-0707104.html > > > ___ > Ken Caldeira > > Carnegie Institution for Science > > Dept of Global Ecology > > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > > +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu > > http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab > > https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira > > > > -- > 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
Re: [geo] McDermott White Paper (2002) on accelerated carbonate weathering as a CCS approach
The basic idea is: CO2 (gas) + CaCO3 (solid) + H2O (liquid) --> Ca2+ + 2 HCO3- (dissolved in the ocean) ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > Elton, could you real quickly go through the chemistry involved? > > I miss seeing how CaCO3 absorbs more CO2, but my chemistry is rusty by > many decades. > > Keith > > On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 11:05 AM, Elton Sherwin > wrote: > > > > > > I am very interested in using limestone to sequester CO2 in power plants. > > This approach--and related limestone based approaches--seem to have > promise. > > And as Ken says they look more affordable than competing technologies. > > > > > > > > Not sure how our little underfund institute can help, but let me know if > I > > can. > > > > > > > > Elton Sherwin > > > > Executive Director, Carbon Zero Institute > > > > Cell: 650.823.9221 > > > > www.CarbonZeroInstitute.org > > > > > > > > From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com > > [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira > > Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2013 8:30 AM > > To: tim.kru...@oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk > > Cc: geoengineering; Andrew Lockley > > > > > > Subject: [geo] McDermott White Paper (2002) on accelerated carbonate > > weathering as a CCS approach > > > > > > > > Tim, > > > > > > > > As per your request to Andrew, attached is an analysis of using > accelerated > > limestone weathering to sequester CO2 from power plant flue gases and > > dispose of it in the ocean, with the carbon acidity neutralized by the > > alkalinity provided by the calcium in the calcium carbonate. > > > > > > > > They concluded that this approach was both economically viable and had > much > > lower energy overheads than did "conventional" CCS with amine scrubbers > and > > suchlike. > > > > > > > > This is an area in which Greg Rau has done a lot of work, and in which I > > have done some work: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Greg_Rau/ > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > Ken > > > > > > > > PS. McDermott Technologies, Inc, used to own Babcock and Wilcox, the > > nuclear engineering company, but spun this off in 2010: > > > http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-McDermott_to_spin_off_BandW-0707104.html > > > > > > ___ > > Ken Caldeira > > > > Carnegie Institution for Science > > > > Dept of Global Ecology > > > > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > > > > +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu > > > > http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab > > > > https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira > > > > > > > > -- > > 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] McDermott White Paper (2002) on accelerated carbonate weathering as a CCS approach
I am very interested in using limestone to sequester CO2 in power plants. This approach--and related limestone based approaches--seem to have promise. And as Ken says they look more affordable than competing technologies. Not sure how our little underfund institute can help, but let me know if I can. Elton Sherwin Executive Director, Carbon Zero Institute Cell: 650.823.9221 www.CarbonZeroInstitute.org<http://www.carbonzeroinstitute.org/> From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira Sent: Sunday, December 08, 2013 8:30 AM To: tim.kru...@oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk Cc: geoengineering; Andrew Lockley Subject: [geo] McDermott White Paper (2002) on accelerated carbonate weathering as a CCS approach Tim, As per your request to Andrew, attached is an analysis of using accelerated limestone weathering to sequester CO2 from power plant flue gases and dispose of it in the ocean, with the carbon acidity neutralized by the alkalinity provided by the calcium in the calcium carbonate. They concluded that this approach was both economically viable and had much lower energy overheads than did "conventional" CCS with amine scrubbers and suchlike. This is an area in which Greg Rau has done a lot of work, and in which I have done some work: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Greg_Rau/ Best, Ken PS. McDermott Technologies, Inc, used to own Babcock and Wilcox, the nuclear engineering company, but spun this off in 2010: http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/C-McDermott_to_spin_off_BandW-0707104.html ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu<mailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>. Visit this group at 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.
