On Wed, Nov 20, 2013 at 6:33 PM, Ronal W. Larson
wrote:
> Keith etal
>
> Thanks for the added material. It seems we understand the differences well,
> so I will keep this short.
>
> 1. Re my #2: You found 1 ppm CO2 as 5.20 Gt CO2. Multiplying by 12/44
> would give 1.42 Gt C, whereas I had 2.
Keith etal
Thanks for the added material. It seems we understand the differences well, so
I will keep this short.
1. Re my #2: You found 1 ppm CO2 as 5.20 Gt CO2. Multiplying by 12/44 would
give 1.42 Gt C, whereas I had 2.13 Gt C ( a number I have seen many times -
such as at
http://c
On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Ronal W. Larson
wrote:
> Keith cc list
>
>1. Since this is a thread with a biochar theme, I thought we should
> compare a hypothetical biochar scenario with your solar power satellite (SPS)
> scenario.
>
>2. Because char is lighter than oil (I assume
Keith cc list
1. Since this is a thread with a biochar theme, I thought we should compare
a hypothetical biochar scenario with your solar power satellite (SPS) scenario.
2. Because char is lighter than oil (I assume relative density of 1/3), I
got 1200 km3 of char, assuming 400 Gt of
Some years ago I calculated how much energy it would take to convert
100 ppm of CO2 into synthetic oil which could be stored in old oil
fields safely for millions of years.
100 ppm of CO2 would be 470 cubic km of the stuff. It's what humans
added to the atmosphere since ~1960.
Had to define a ne
Or simply CRS (Carbon Removal and Storage). A few years back when this
group came up with the names SRM and CDR, I argued for CRS, reasoning that
any CO2 removal method has to be accompanied by storage as a truly workable
carbon sequestration strategy. many cheers, -Ning
On Monday, November 18
Ken and list:
The only way I can see to respond is paragraph by paragraph. Apologies in
advance, but there are some important topics below for biochar.
On Nov 18, 2013, at 3:59 PM, Ken Caldeira wrote:
> Folks,
>
> The question about whether biochar is a CDR technique and therefore
> "ge
