Use olivine to remove carbon dioxide?

[David B. Benson]

I am interested in comments regarding

ftp://ftp.geog.uu.nl/pub/posters/2008/Let_the_earth_help_us_to_save_the_earth-Schuiling_June2008.pdf

[Don Libby]

From: "David B. Benson" <dbe...@eecs.wsu.edu>
Newsgroups: gmane.science.general.global-change
To: "globalchange" <global...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 8:14 PM
Subject: [Global Change: 2914] Use olivine to remove carbon dioxide?

>
> I am interested in comments regarding
>
> ftp://ftp.geog.uu.nl/pub/posters/2008/Let_the_earth_help_us_to_save_the_earth-Schuiling_June2008.pdf
>

Just the usual: if carbon offset market is the only source of revenue for
this industry, what is the break-even price per ton of CO2-equivalent?

I've heard olivine suggested as a carbon absorber for pure CO2 streams
generated by gasifiers at power plants - but I'm not sure if just grinding
it up and dumping on the ground would be more cost effective.

-dl

[David B. Benson]

On Oct 4, 2:27 pm, "Don Libby" <dli...@tds.net> wrote:
>... - but I'm not sure if just grinding

> it up and dumping on the ground would be more cost effective.

The paper claims an eventual price of only $14 per tonne of CO2.
That's unbeatably6 low, it seems to me. [The starting price seems to
be about $38 per tonne of CO2, about the same (on the high side) as
turning wood into biochar and burying the biochar deep undeerground.

[Don Libby]

From: "David B. Benson" <dbe...@eecs.wsu.edu>
Newsgroups: gmane.science.general.global-change
To: "globalchange" <global...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2008 5:49 PM
Subject: [Global Change: 2920] Re: Use olivine to remove carbon dioxide?

Other potential applications occur to me. Wisconsin uses an average of
20,000 tons of sand per year to provide traction on icy winter roads. That
is small potatoes compared to the use of sand for beach maintenance in
Coastal states. If the cost of mining and grinding olivine to sand and
stockpiling it could be offset by carbon credits, then the cost of spreading
it on roads or beaches could be covered by taxpayers as usual.

Of course, we would want to use carbon-free energy for mining, grinding, and
shipping olivine sand to ensure the process is net carbon negative.

-dl

[hgerh...@yahoo.co.uk]

> ftp://ftp.geog.uu.nl/pub/posters/2008/Let_the_earth_help_us_to_save_t...

A colleague of mine at ECN's done a PhD on the subject. Here's his
literature review:

http://www.ecn.nl/docs/library/report/2003/c03016.pdf

[Robert A. Rohde]

Unbeatable you say? Calera is trying to turn CO2 + seawater into a
carbonaceous cement that can be sold at a competitive price for
construction projects in place of traditional cement. Assumming that
concentrated high temperature CO2 is available for free (from power
plant exhaust), the company's goal is to have a negative cost per
tonne sequestered. In other words, they want to earn a profit by
selling a product formed by sequestering CO2.

It's a little early to know whether they will actually succeed, but
they certainly have an interesting proposal.

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=cement-from-carbon-dioxide
http://venturebeat.com/2007/10/05/calera-pulls-carbon-dioxide-out-of-atmosphere-to-produce-cement/

-Robert Rohde

[hgerh...@yahoo.co.uk]

> .  Assumming that
> concentrated high temperature CO2 is available for free

The high temperature bit at least is iffy, if it's high temperature,
you can still make electricity.

Also, overall I just don't get what Calera precisely want to do. They
say they are producing "cement", but it's awfully vague. What exactly
are their inputs, their output and why will that work as a cement
substitute (it isn't really cement or is it???)

[David B. Benson]

On Oct 6, 5:26 am, "hgerhau...@yahoo.co.uk" <hgerhau...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
> ... (it isn't really cement or is it???)

Its not Portland cement; construction companies will be leary of using
much of it.

Anyway, the requirements are so specialized that this will only be the
tiniest bit player; in 2007 the excess carbon added to the active
carbon cycle was 10 GtC!

[David B. Benson]

On Oct 5, 11:48 pm, "hgerhau...@yahoo.co.uk" <hgerhau...@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
> ... Here's his
> literature review:
>
> http://www.ecn.nl/docs/library/report/2003/c03016.pdf

Thank you. A useful read.

[Piscesdream]

After reading up a bit on the Olivine theory, these are the issues I
have with it:

1. Olivine occurs naturally in much of the world, however,as your link
to the publication suggested it should only be done in 'wetter'
environments. When I looked up the deposits around the world, these
were the listed countries' deposits:

Large deposits of olivine-bearing dunites crop out in Norway, Sweden,
USSR, Austria, Japan, New Zealand, Zimbabwe, South Africa, United
States, New Caledonia, Italy, Greece, Spain, India, Brazil, and Canada
(Anon., 1970, Bennett, 1940; Brothers, 1960; Du Rietz, 1935; Francis,
1956; Gwinn, 1943; Hunter, 1941; Ragan, 1961; Roberts, 1947; Yudin,
1959).

In the United States, numerous lenslike bodies extend in a belt from
northeastern Georgia, northeastward across western North Carolina.
Some 25 of these deposits are relatively fresh, with each containing
up to five million tons of recoverable olivine.

Many small to large dunite bodies occur in northwestern Washington,
with the Twin Sisters deposit being the largest.

Taylor (1967) describes eight zoned ultramafic complexes in
southeastern Alaska containing cores of dunite. Some of these olivine
cores are as great as one mile in diameter.

Almost all of these countries other than Brazil are out of the
'wetter' climates. In my humble opinion, I think Humans have had
ENOUGH environmental impact on the Brazillian/Amazonian Rainforest for
many generations to come.


PD
source: http://books.smenet.org/Surf_Min_2ndEd/sm-ch02-sc10-ss18-bod.cfm

[David B. Benson]

On Oct 29, 10:19 pm, Piscesdream <piscesdrea...@gmail.com> wrote:
>... New Caledonia, ... India, Brazil, ...
are all warm and wet.

> ... northeastern Georgia, northeastward across western North Carolina.
Even this location would suffice.

>... In my humble opinion, I think Humans have had

> ENOUGH environmental impact on the Brazillian/Amazonian Rainforest for
> many generations to come.

Other than the mining, wouldn't hurt the Amazon Rain Forest in the
slightest.

[FlyBird]

Here's an interesting study, how about locking CO2 into peridotite
rock formations? They say peridotite is highly reactive with CO2 to
form limestone and other carbonates.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scientists Recommend Permanent Method For Carbon Sequestration: Turn
CO2 into Rock
A breaking study indicates that 4 billion tons of carbon dioxide a
year could be locked up in rock formations that cover half of Oman—
finally putting a dent in global greenhouse gases. And the same
principle could be transferred to rock formations in shallow seas.

By Jon Luoma
Published on: November 17, 2008

As PM reported in July, Columbia University geologist Peter Kelemen
has been studying peridotite, a highly-reactive rock that covers about
half the landscape of Oman, and appears at scattered locations
worldwide. The rock naturally reacts with carbon dioxide (CO2),
removing it from the air to form limestone and other carbonates.

In a study published November 11 in the Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, Kelemen and Columbia geochemist Jurg Matter
suggest the natural process of removing CO2 from the air could be
accelerated 100,000 fold, enough to make a significant dent in global
warming. They calculate that Oman's peridotite alone could sequester 4
billion tons of CO2 per year, one-eighth of the 30 billion tons of CO2
humans emit annually. The researchers suggest that CO2 captured from
power plants and other sources could be pumped down boreholes into
peridotite. Using fracturing technology borrowed from the petroleum
industry to shatter the rock and expose more of its surface area, CO2
would seep into the peridotite hundreds of feet below the ground. Heat
would be added initially to accelerate chemical reactions. But as new
carbonate rock begins forming, the process could start feeding on
itself, with new carbonate rock continually fracturing the host rock
further, and the heat from the reaction supplementing the deep-Earth's
heat.

The two scientists also offered a second scenario that Kelemen calls
"even more intriguing." The alternative method would remove CO2
directly from the air and transfer it to boreholes drilled into
peridotite formations in shallow water just off the Oman coast.
Surface seawater naturally sponges up carbon dioxide until it reaches
chemical equilibrium; a saturation point. In this scenario, seawater
would be pumped deep into one borehole. Heated naturally by the Earth
to about 185 C, it would release its CO2 again to form carbonate
rocks. Rising to the surface via a second, paired hole, the seawater
could then sop up more CO2, continuing a cycle that, once started,
might be self-sustained by simple convection.

If it worked, the second method would require far more extensive
fields of boreholes because of the limited ability of seawater to take
up CO2. But it would also eliminate both the complexity and cost of
capturing pure CO2 at the source, and of transporting it. "The air,"
says Kelemen, "transports CO2 for free."

There are other major advantages to what Keleman terms air capture."
"Not only don't we have to capture the CO2 at places like power
plants," he says, "there's a substantial portion of CO2 that comes
from places where we wouldn't have any hope of capturing it—CO2
emitted by cars, for example." Kelemen notes that there appear to be
few ways to accelerate the rate of carbon transformation in this
second option. Even if it were possible to pump more seawater through
the boreholes, doing so would be self-defeating. "If you pumped at an
intensified rate, you'll just cool the rocks down," he says.

Yet he notes that "with enough holes" this approach alone might still
be able to capture a large portion of the atmosphere's excess
greenhouse gas. Effective air-capture technology could also mean that
peridotite formations in shallow seas elsewhere, including remote New
Caledonia and Papua New Guinea, could come into play.

Kelemen cautions, however, that the team has only begun its work on
the seawater option, and that data are far more preliminary than for
the more developed land-based scenario. In the short term, a land-
based system in Oman could be fed pure CO2 captured from power plants
and refineries across the Middle East and fed down a pipeline, one
that might eventually be extended to the Balkan states or beyond.

Although some peridotite formations lie off the coast of California,
options for using the technology to help directly control CO2
emissions in the U.S. are limited. No matter, says Kelemen. "The
problem is global. We'll need lots of approaches. I don't think it's
wise to even be looking for one, big golden fix."

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4292181.html

[David B. Benson]

On Nov 27, 9:03 am, FlyBird <raj_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4292181.html

Thanks. Here is my current list of articles and papers on this:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081105180813.htm
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4292181.html
http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/21629/?a=f
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/45/17295

[Don Libby]

From: "David B. Benson" <dbe...@eecs.wsu.edu>
Newsgroups: gmane.science.general.global-change
To: "globalchange" <global...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 6:29 PM
Subject: [Global Change: 2930] Re: Use olivine to remove carbon dioxide?

From a private message sent by "Kenny", an interesting set of engineering
solutions is arrayed here (where a broadband connection gives a big boost to
your viewing pleasure):

>See A2engineeringgroup website for using olivine and reacting with
>CO2. See the Hydrofuel part. A lot of information. it apparently
>reacts in seconds in this process. Looks real promising.
>
> http://www.a2engineeringgroup.com
>

-dl

[Nolin, Kenneth M.]

Thanks oh by the way I am working with the inventor to help him commercialize. I will have a power point in a few days.
Thanks
Kenny nolin
225-773-3952

[Bart Verheggen]

From a brief literature review we did on mitigation options that are a
bit out of the ordinary:

There are several naturally occurring minerals that react with and
fixate CO2 from the air, most notably metal silicates that form upon
reaction with CO2 the corresponding metal carbonate and solid silica.
The best known of these is olivine ((Mg,Fe)2SiO4), which is found in
e.g. peridotite rock formations. The reaction is exothermic (i.e.
energy producing) but slow. It requires energy to speed up the
reaction to meaningful rates, and its energy use is close to the break-
even point of equivalent CO2 displacement [IPCC SRCCS, 2005], though
different sources come to different conclusions in this respect
[Kelemen and Matter, 2008; Schuiling and Krijgsman, 2006]. According
to Lackner (2002; 2003), once the CO2 is bound to the mineral, it
won’t return to the atmosphere: the sequestration is practically
permanent. In the case of leaching, additional CO2 would be bound in
the transformation of solid magnesium carbonate to dissolved magnesium
bicarbonate [Lackner, 2002].

The whole report is available here as pdf:
http://www.kennisvoorklimaat.nl/nl/25222685-KVK_Nieuws.html?opage_id=25222957&location=1942795406124146,10303825,true,true

With a thorough discussion of biomass and slightly less thorough of
geoengineering, air capture and other options.

Bart
http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/

On Jun 8, 2:49 pm, "Nolin, Kenneth M." <KMNo...@fbd.com> wrote:
> Thanks oh by the way I am working with the inventor to help him commercialize. I will have a power point in a few days.
> Thanks
> Kenny nolin
> 225-773-3952
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: global...@googlegroups.com <global...@googlegroups.com>
> To: global...@googlegroups.com <global...@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Mon Jun 08 07:41:28 2009
> Subject: [Global Change: 3228] Re: Use olivine to remove carbon dioxide?
>

> From: "David B. Benson" <dben...@eecs.wsu.edu>
>
> Newsgroups: gmane.science.general.global-change
> To: "globalchange" <global...@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Monday, October 06, 2008 6:29 PM
> Subject: [Global Change: 2930] Re: Use olivine to remove carbon dioxide?
>
> > On Oct 5, 11:48 pm, "hgerhau...@yahoo.co.uk" <hgerhau...@yahoo.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >> ... Here's his
> >> literature review:
>
> >>http://www.ecn.nl/docs/library/report/2003/c03016.pdf
>
> > Thank you.  A useful read.
>
> From a private message sent by "Kenny", an interesting set of engineering
> solutions is arrayed here (where a broadband connection gives a big boost to
> your viewing pleasure):
>
> >See A2engineeringgroup website for using olivine and reacting with
> >CO2. See the Hydrofuel part. A lot of information. it apparently
> >reacts in seconds in this process. Looks real promising.
>
> >  http://www.a2engineeringgroup.com
>

> -dl- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -