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

[Michael Hayes]

Large scale CO2 hydrate production and deposition may be expedited through 
the use of a large scale Ocean Thermal Conversion plant positioned 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 
of instillation could have a number of second/third level advantages. I 
could list a half dozen, however the additional advantages 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.

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 produce 90+% 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 Date: Fri, June 03, 2011 1:13 pmTo: geoengineering@googlegroups.comCc: r...@llnl.gov, "s.sal...@ed.ac.uk" ;, kcaldeira-gmail , "andrew.lock...@gmail.com"Large scale CO2 hydrate production and deposition may be expedited through the use of a large scale Ocean Thermal Conversion plant positioned 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 of instillation could have a number of second/third level advantages. I could list a half dozen, however the additional advantages 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 CO2 lakes, 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 liquid by pressing up against each other, leaving only very 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 through the pillow layer.  The same kinds of plastics discussed in the attached narrative would be good for the pillows.  The lack of ultraviolet 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?  How might the lake affect nearby sea life?  If we make a solid mass of hydrate, how long before marine snow and the creatures that live in it have reestablished a new sea floor which covers and contains 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: Easy ideal fluid RE: [geo] Deep ocean disposal

[Michael Hayes]

Hi 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 of inherent flexibility 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,
 
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 Date: 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 of inherent flexibility 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.