Re: [CDR] Digest for CarbonDioxideRemoval@googlegroups.com - 17 updates in 4 topics
13 views
Skip to first unread message
Laura Wasserson
Aug 21, 2023, 11:51:31 AM8/21/23
to CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com
Thank you for reaching out. I am out of the office until August 28, with limited access to email.
If your matter is urgent and requires immediate attention please contact fl...@climitigation.org or er...@climitigation.org.
For non-urgent matters, I will attend to your email as soon as I return. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and appreciate your understanding.
Best,
Laura
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 17:51:07 +0200, CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com wrote:
- Summary of current price per kg of DAC and other CDR technologies.... - 14 Updates
- Impact of wet-dry cycles on enhanced rock weathering of brucite, wollastonite, serpentinite and kimberlite: Implications for carbon verification - 1 Update
- Alkalinity generation from carbonate weathering in a silicate-dominated headwater catchment at Iskorasfjellet, northern Norway - 1 Update
- Direct Air Capture of CO2 Using Amine/Alumina Sorbents at Cold Temperature - 1 Update
Amal Bhattarai <amalbh...@gmail.com>: Aug 20 09:27AM -0700
Www.CDR.fyi tracks commercial “current” prices for the most popular
methods; prices include the (astronomical) profit.
What the prices “should” be is too early to calculate, because many CDR
techniques have not yet been sufficiently developed or have not entered the
“marketplace”….
"Clive Elsworth" <Cl...@EndorphinSoftware.co.uk>: Aug 20 06:43PM +0100
Dan
Thanks for the ambient carbon link, which mentions using Cl2 which splits in the presence of light. It produces HCl (and CO2 and H2O), and each Cl atom removes one methane molecule. (BTW we’ve known David Miller several years.)
What we have been proposing for the atmosphere is using a photocatalytic cycle, in which each chlorine atom gets recycled many times to remove many methane molecules – we estimate around 1000 with our latest proposed aerosol formulation.
Solar PV and renewables
I wonder what the embedded CO2 is in this cheap solar PV? China appears quite happy to install ever more coal power for any of its manufacturing.
RethinkX seems to think any location is suitable for renewables, which doesn’t seem credible to me for places that are not very windy or sunny. The cost of transmission then becomes a constraint. The mining of ever lower grade ores to satisfy renewables’ (and the associated grid’s) voracious appetite for resources per unit of energy generation capacity looks ecologically damaging to me, not to mention a health hazard to those who live nearby or work in the mines.
Moltex Energy foresee a future complementing renewables by peaking during the troughs. They have no fear of their power stations becoming stranded assets. They also don’t see the (for now) declining cost of lithium batteries threatening their GridReserve heat storage. Other storage types maybe. But heat storage in nitrate salt tanks is cheap, and they’ll just replace those with whatever becomes cheaper.
But whether a mix of energy sources, or renewables wins out it’s good news if energy becomes cheap all around the world, because that ought eventually to enable the politicians to enact carbon pricing to phase out fossil fuels. That is the important point here.
But let’s not hold our breaths, and not forget the need for immediate cooling of the oceans.
Clive
From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Dan Miller
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2023 4:14 PM
To: Clive Elsworth <Cl...@EndorphinSoftware.co.uk>
Cc: Michael Hayes <electro...@gmail.com>; Peter Eisenberger <peter.ei...@gmail.com>; Chris Van Arsdale <cvana...@google.com>; Gregory Slater <ten...@gmail.com>; Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>; via NOAC Meetings <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; David S. Miller <da...@ambientcarbon.com>
Subject: [CDR] Re: 20 point plan
See my responses in blue.
On Aug 20, 2023, at 3:25 AM, Clive Elsworth <Cl...@EndorphinSoftware.co.uk <mailto:Cl...@EndorphinSoftware.co.uk> > wrote:
Dan
Thanks for your 20-point plan. Questions and comments:
1. How can new fossil fuel infrastructure be banned in China or any country other than your own? - It’s a *global* plan.
2. For fee and dividend to work it must essentially be global, which means either sufficiently strong border adjustment inducements, or going straight to a global carbon price, preferably also rising gradually. That would incentivise development of cost-effective, zero carbon power sources like nothing else. - yes, F&D should be global & can be via boarder adjustments. See my TEDx talk: https://youtu.be/0k2-SzlDGko
3. I don’t see in your list a plan to ‘fast track’ the development of Generation 4 nuclear power, some of which is estimated to generate electricity cheaper than fossil fuels: $35/MWh baseload, $54/MWh peaked i.e. driven from heat storage. Some can also supply ~800oC process heat for around $10/MWh. The capital cost is ~$2/Watt or probably less. Currently the First of a Kind reactor is expected to begin operating in the UK around 2030 (the MoltexFLEX reactor). - Nuclear is safe, but it is much more expensive than renewables and takes much longer to install. By the time that Gen4/SMR are available, solar PV will cost $0.01/kWh and batteries will cost a fraction of what they do now (which is 10% of what they cost 10~15 years ago). See: https://www.rethinkx.com/energy
4. It’s great to see you listing funding for R&D into solar radiation management. We believe there is great scope for doing that in the troposphere by increasing the amount of haze and brightening clouds, mainly in the tropics and subtropics. Cooling the oceans where they are hottest would cool the rest of them, including the polar regions. - With an AMOC collapse *expected* around mid-century, we are going to need to fast track SMR deployment!
5. Do you have a cost estimate for plugging all methane leaks? <https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-drilling-abandoned-specialreport-idUSKBN23N1NL> Reuters estimates there are around 29 million abandoned oil/gas world internationally, and more than 3.2 million in the USA. - I don’t have a cost estimate for plugging the leaks but I am quite sure the cost is much less than the cost of *not* plugging them!
6. What about the main methane sources, which are wetlands and agriculture, with melting permafrost likely increasing to become significant, not to mention the threat of shallow seabed melting permafrost? - That’s bad too and it is one of the reasons we need to deploy SMR soon!
7. Are you open to the idea of enhancing the natural atmospheric methane sink? The putative description of part of this mechanism done by chlorine radicals from dust particles in the Oeste et al 2017 paper was recently measured and described here: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2303974120. Mimicking this mechanism would (subject to further testing and modelling) also remove other oxidable short-lived climate forcing agents, the main other ones being tropospheric ozone and black carbon aerosol. Research is ongoing into this, but we could sure use more funding. - I haven’t looked into that specifically, but my brother runs a company that mimics the natural destruction of methane in order to eradicate methane from low-concentration sources: https://ambientcarbon.com
Clive
From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <mailto:carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <mailto:carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> > On Behalf Of Dan Miller
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2023 3:56 AM
To: Michael Hayes <electro...@gmail.com <mailto:electro...@gmail.com> >
Cc: Peter Eisenberger <peter.ei...@gmail.com <mailto:peter.ei...@gmail.com> >; Chris Van Arsdale <cvana...@google.com <mailto:cvana...@google.com> >; Gregory Slater <ten...@gmail.com <mailto:ten...@gmail.com> >; Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [CDR] Summary of current price per kg of DAC and other CDR technologies....
I would suggest that current numbers for cost of CDR are not meaningful. These are numbers for kiloton per year capture vs. the needed gigaton per year (1,000,000X more). Learning curves should bring the cost down by about an order of magnitude or more.
And I don’t understand the discussion of “cost effectiveness” for CDR. It’s bit like asking about the cost effectiveness of heart bypass surgery. Without it, you’re dead. How do you calculate the ROI?
The bottom line is that the cost of doing CDR at scale (I estimate it’s $2T/year for -40 Gt/y) is much less than the cost of *not* doing it. So, from that point of view, it’s very cost effective.
And, no, there is not a tradeoff between CDR and emissions reduction using renewable energy. An emissions reduction only approach leads to >2ºC warming which is catastrophic. So CDR is required on top of the most aggressive emissions reduction we can muster. Emissions reduction only also leads to an AMOC collapse around mid-century, so SRM is also required.
I notice that a lot of the negative discussion around CDR recently assumes we will not have any serious policy to fight climate change. That is why they think a dollar spent on CDR is a dollar not spent on RE. They also worry that CDR will give FF companies more social license to continue their business. It’s like we are asking FF companies to "pretty please" reduce their business. This makes sense since we currently have no serious policy in place to fight climate change and we continue to choose to fail, as Kevin Anderson puts it. Well, I have news for everyone. If we continue to choose to fail, we will fail!
But we can choose to succeed and put serious policies in place to quickly phase out fossil fuels, scale up CDR, and get going with SRM. Notice that I didn’t mention RE there. If we phase out FF, then RE will take its place. No need to subsidize it (which results in more RE than we need).
Once again, here is my suggested 20-point policy plan to fight climate change, in case we choose to succeed.
Dan
On Aug 19, 2023, at 8:48 PM, Michael Hayes <electro...@gmail.com <mailto:electro...@gmail.com> > wrote:
Peter, et al.,
The NOAA mCDR team is already doing a deep evaluation of mCDR methods. If anything, they are creating a template for non mCDR methods to follow.
Best regards
On Sat, Aug 19, 2023, 5:11 PM Peter Eisenberger <peter.ei...@gmail.com <mailto:peter.ei...@gmail.com> > wrote:
Thanks for the reference. I looked at the DACCS evaluation and noted
the comment that it lacked any co benefits that would enhance its adoption.
I wrote a paper in 2012 that showed that DACUS ( eg use and storage ) would provide such co benefits
turning it from a cost to a profitable equitable and sustainable approach to climate change protection
https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.14976
I do applaud their efforts because it is exactly what is needed so as to focus our efforts on the most
promising approaches - time is a critical factor and we need a coordinated effort to scale the most promising
approaches. We need to come together and carry out an independent assessment with the best experts of the many approaches
and provide the policy makers with a technical assessment that can guide their policy efforts.
On Sat, Aug 19, 2023 at 3:08 PM 'Chris Van Arsdale' via Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com <mailto:CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com> > wrote:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/acacb3/pdf
... not that everyone agrees with those numbers.
On Sat, Aug 19, 2023 at 2:52 PM Gregory Slater <ten...@gmail.com <mailto:ten...@gmail.com> > wrote:
Hello All,
Could someone point me to a good 'spreadsheet-like' summary of the current price per kg of CO2 removal for the various CDR technologies/methods? Also interested in a 'time per kg' (removal timescale, including the time it takes to build out the infrastructure) for all CDR technologies.
Thanks for any help,
Greg Slater
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com <mailto:CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com> .
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/1f05b81a-4a2c-4914-a824-ba1f7764aff3n%40googlegroups.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/1f05b81a-4a2c-4914-a824-ba1f7764aff3n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> .
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com <mailto:CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com> .
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CADzNRbYAprTv658Q3hHEa5jTdbzA_s3F7YKoHjhSZ6OH-f1haQ%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CADzNRbYAprTv658Q3hHEa5jTdbzA_s3F7YKoHjhSZ6OH-f1haQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> .
--
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: This email message and all attachments contain confidential and privileged information that are for the sole use of the intended recipients, which if appropriate applies under the terms of the non-disclosure agreement between the parties.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com <mailto:CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com> .
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CANx_M7Sx0Opks%2BZp5huBEui5RRkSMr1mB4pXdNc%3D8MBqBjMuug%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CANx_M7Sx0Opks%2BZp5huBEui5RRkSMr1mB4pXdNc%3D8MBqBjMuug%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> .
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com <mailto:CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com> .
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CABjtO1cv%3DA-%2BdjNWPVJ2emJNiDdkvp9nna3StLhE%2BhwUe8FKzQ%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CABjtO1cv%3DA-%2BdjNWPVJ2emJNiDdkvp9nna3StLhE%2BhwUe8FKzQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> .
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com <mailto:CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com> .
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/B9A3C784-80BB-432C-BF68-4C66512FA892%40rodagroup.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/B9A3C784-80BB-432C-BF68-4C66512FA892%40rodagroup.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> .
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com <mailto:CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com> .
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/9CB1724A-A74F-487E-94CB-08FE34457AAE%40rodagroup.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/9CB1724A-A74F-487E-94CB-08FE34457AAE%40rodagroup.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> .
Michael Hayes <electro...@gmail.com>: Aug 20 12:10PM -0700
Hi Folks,
1) The focus of this CDR list is to inform on the STEM, policy, and
socioeconomics of the now many methods being proposed for CO2 management.
There are general geoengineering chat groups available for wide ranging
discussions across all imaginable STEM, policy and socioeconomic concerns
and ideas, yet this CDR space is focused upon CO2 management.
2) Coupling SRM and CDR at the technical level would help.
3) I would add a 21st goal:
*Find synergies between SRM and CDR technologies that can help avoid known
limiting factors at the STEM, policy, and socioeconomic levels.*
4) In my opinion, the technically easiest, cheapest, and thus fastest way
to initially fulfill that requirement might be sea ice engineering.
Sea ice production will likely produce heat that can be useful for marine
biotic CDR processing and/or drive abiotic mCDR methods. Why not build a
combined SRM/CDR plan on that common technical ground?
5) Importing any bulk material into the polar ice regions, into the marine
environment in general, for SRM or CDR, is more problematic at the
international policy, cost, and social acceptance levels than using
technologies that need no imports.
Why not build a combined SRM/CDR technical development policy on a 'no
import' standard? Why fight unnecessary battles?
Best regards
pfieko <pfi...@gmail.com>: Aug 20 12:13PM -0700
Great question. I've been working on an analysis--from the perspective of
restoring historically safe CO2 levels.
<https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B09WKVMXTT/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_tkin_p1_i0>
Cost-Effectiveness of Carbon-Dioxide Removal Methods: Costs determine
scalability, and costs vary by a factor of 30,000
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/17bLAXZOBzSGXm_L4k-0HibjfALASTbQgL4fs6GKLVMM/edit#heading=h.wpg5x23cvkde>
The costs of DAC, enhanced ocean alkalinity, bio-oil injection (Charm
Industrial), BECCS, and biochar are all in the $100 / ton to $1000 per ton
range, varying between theoretical and real implementations.
Solar and wind energy generation replace coal and natural gas use--and
reduce future CO2 levels at $10 / ton CO2 avoided--which is 10 to 100 times
more efficient than DAC, etc.
Ocean iron fertilization, according to the National Academies (NASEM 2021)
report, could be done for about $.03 / ton removed. But doing that is
labeled misbehavior--presumably because that could reduce CO2 40% to 280
ppm, in opposition to the 1992 UNFCCC goal of stabilization, that is,
eliminating human caused climate intervention.
The plausibility of OIF at scale is seen in Mt. Pinatubo eruption data
(also a draft report)
The Mt. Pinatubo Eruption Preceded Removal of 20 Gt of Atmospheric CO2 in
One Year—Supporting the Feasibility of Climate Restoration through Ocean
Fertilization
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aJaIZeaGMfaENM2RWRPhboc3TbiTAklCmB-r0LrS61A/edit#heading=h.jq9c29kvhj1i>
I hope that opens up some new thinking here.
I'll repost those papers when they're complete.
Peter
On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 10:43:37 AM UTC-7 clive wrote:
"Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas" <bme...@earthlink.net>: Aug 20 03:03PM -0500
Thanks Dan.
Below my signature is a review and interpretation of David Keith's 2018,
$94 to $232 per ton CO2 removal. He presents two scenarios, where
scenarios are assumed futures. The $0.03 kWh natural gas scenario at $94
per ton removal used the cheapest fracked gas at the time. Using a
renewable energy scenario, Keith's costs are about 66 percent less than
his published work.
I also want to make an important point about fossil fuel energy and
climate science. The science does _not_ say we must eliminate fossil
fuel energy, it says we must reduce Earth's energy imbalance. It is the
scenarios that say we must reduce or eliminate fossil fuel energy.
Scenarios are "made up futures" and most science and particularly
climate science cannot function without them. If a scenario does not
include certain things, then the science that comes from that scenario
is agnostic on those certain things. The IPCC's latest assessment report
series chose to include 1,202 of the over 3,000 scenarios in climate
science published in the last 6 to 7 years. None of these scenarios had
a warming target of less than 1.5 C. None had futures where fossil fuel
emissions were not limited or eliminated (except the BAU scenarios of
course.) None had a focus on air capture of CO2 (or geoengineering).
None considered activation of tipping systems and time frames sooner
than 2100.
And a thought experiment on scenarios: /When we discovered disease from
improper treatment (no treatment) of human sewage pollution was killing
millions in the 19th century, we did not stop emitting human sewage./
I did a cursory 20-year scenario of air capture climate restoration a
while back that I will not bore you with the details but, to remove
1,000 Gt CO2 from the atmosphere, and remove half of future emissions
(because half are absorbed by Earth's systems), emissions elimination
would only assist air capture restoration by about 20 percent.
Importantly though as Dan suggested previously, we must scale air
capture by a massive amount, some 10,000 times greater than Keith's 1
million ton per year hypothetical facility being built now, so that we
can remove the 1,000 Gt excess CO2 from the sky and restore our climate.
If we do not create this 10,000 times scaled infrastructure, we fail and
our Earth systems emit far more feedback greenhouse gases than
humankind's. To deal with future fossil fuel emissions (and from ag,
forests and other land uses too), we must only scale the required
restoration infrastructure by another 20 percent. This of course means
that future emissions are little money relative to the 10,000 times
scaling task ahead of us to prevent untenable natural feedback emissions.
Some good news? There are more than 200, 1 million ton per year
facilities committed now because of the IRA's, IRS 45Q carbon capture
incentive. If all of these facilities are built and function well, and
the capture incentive continues, we only have to scale by 250 times. The
cost at today's $180 a ton for IRS 45Q would then be $9 trillion per
year for 20 years. Our global GDP was $100 trillion last year and as Dan
mentioned, costs (and the incentive) will be much lower with scaling and
process refinements (Like Global Thermostat's!)
Hot in Austin. Positive energy to Maui. Fingers crossed in California
and Yellowknife. In Austin, we broke our all-time record of 10
consecutive 105 degree days this year; twice. It was 114 in my back yard
Wednesday last and 110 downtown and all across Central Texas. We have
had 60 days of 100+ this year and 44 days in a row above 100, wildly
beating our last record of 27 days in a row. It is quite likely this
unprecedented heat dome will extend at least through the end of the
month as the 14-day forecasts show. There is a fearsome amount of death
here: trees, perennials, birds and literally all forms of life. These
extremes are simply way beyond the evolutionary boundaries of our normal
climate from the 20th century where we had 10.5 days above 100 every
year on average. The 2022, 5-year average number of 100+ days per year
is 47. All the rivers flowing into our Highland Lakes have zero flow
except the Llano with 2 CFS. We have not had a quarter of an inch of
rain in 72 days.
Bonus! See the History of Carbon Dioxide Removal below. My favorite is
that the first instance of air capture CO2 was with Guinness (beer!),
that came from Carl Linde's Nobel Prize high pressure refrigeration
process that saved the summer brewing industry in Bavaria in the 1870s
and 80s. Then in 1892, Guinness asked Linde to develop a CO2
liquefication process to sell their excess CO2 from fermentation. Linde
then used a double refrigeration process to create enough pressure to
liquefy CO2... Beer might just be responsible for saving the world!
-MeltOn
*Keith 2018... David Keith's paper evaluates the 1,000 ton per year
Carbon Engineering DAC process in Squamish British Columbia, where he
scaled the process using existing industrial components with known
scaling factors to 1 million tons per year, and includes upstream and
process emissions. *
* The $94 to $232 per ton range reflects the low and high energy costs
of the cheapest fracked gas at the time of $0.03 kWh to $0.06 kWh
(verified through personal communication with Keith).
* Keith includes a 10% carbon penalty for the natural gas energy, in
other words, his paper says it takes 10 percent more process to
remove the carbon emitted from burning the natural gas to create the
energy to run the process.
* Latest wind and solar costs, utility scale are now at $0.01 kWh (see
links below).
* Keith includes 8% profit and a 7.5 to 12.5 percent capitol recovery
factor.
* The process has a levelized efficiency of 90 percent considering
upstream and fugitive emissions in the process and sequestration
transportation and injection.
* 87 percent of total costs are energy related.
* At $0.01 kWh then, a 66 percent decrease from Keith's $0.03 kWh $94
per ton scenario, costs are $39 a ton. Note: This is idealized as
Keith's process requires some heat energy that canmnot be supplied
by renewable reistance heat. Nevertheless, the renewable cost
scenario is meaningful because likely the vast majority of DAC will
be done by the fossil fuel industrial complex who has a direct
production resource of natural gas energy at costs far below Keith's
assumed $0.03 kWh.
* Process refinements reduce costs further.
* Scaling reduces costs further dependent upon the amount of scaling.
Keith et al., A Process for Capturing CO2 from the Atmosphere, Joule,
August 15, 2018.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2542435118302253
Renewable 2021:
Morocco to England 10.5 Gw $0.013 kWh and $0.067 kWh wind
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/04/22/submarine-cable-to-connect-10-5-gw-wind-solar-complex-in-morocco-to-the-uk-grid/
Offshore Wind $0.0075 kWh
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2017/09/11/uk-cfd-auction-sees-renewables-set-record-low-strike-price/
Saudi Arabia 600 Mw Solar $0.0104 kWh
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2021/04/08/saudi-arabias-second-pv-tender-draws-world-record-low-bid-of-0104-kwh/
*/History of Carbon Dioxide Removal/*
Nobel Prize winner Carl Linde was the first to remove carbon dioxide
from air. His technology was developed from his refrigeration discovery
that itself was first used in the 1870s to help the brewing industry
overcome limitations on summer season brewing and beer storage that was
plagued by bacterial contamination. By 1890 Linde had sold 747 of his
“ice machines.” In 1892 Guinness contracted with Linde to build a CO2
liquefaction plant to sell excess CO2 from fermentation. This set in
motion the ultra-cold refrigeration technology that Linde later used in
cryoseparation to distill the components of air into usable products
that included, oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide and argon. The
cryoseparation technology first supercools air to a liquid, then
evaporates the liquid in a tall column where the temperature rises
upwards in the column, condensing individual components at different
temperatures, much like water vapor condenses in clouds.
Image Caption: /The WWII Gato-Balao Class submarines were the first US
subs to use the potash process to remove CO2 from submarine air to keep
our sailors safe from CO2 poisoning. /
//
*/Early 20th Century Air Capture of CO2/*/
/
In 1904 the recyclable lime-potash process was discovered to separate
CO2 from air as a simple chemical reaction using extremely common potash
and lime. In 1930 the first patent was issued for an ammonia-based
process that used amines to remove CO2 from air. Notable applications
were in submarines in World War II to keep our sailors safe form carbon
dioxide poisoning. Also in World War II, the Habor-Bosch Process was
developed to synthesize ammonia from hydrocarbons in Germany, mostly for
explosives, as the Allies had cut off the German supplies of guano
needed to generate the ammonia. This process became an extremely
important process globally in synthesizing fertilizers. An important
part of this process is removing CO2 to allow the formation of ammonia.
This CO2 removal process advanced the state of amine technology for
removal of CO2 from air. These three processes are mature today and
represent some of the most important industrial processes known to
humankind. Their components are widespread in industry making their
implementation into a scaled atmospheric CO2 removal infrastructure a
challenge of motivation and money, not technology.
NOTES:
*/Slide Summary:/*/Below are references to the three major, mature
carbon dioxide removal technologies, their discoveries and invention and
notable developments in these technologies: Cryoseparation, recyclable
lime/potash, and amines./
*Cryoseparation of air…*Carl Linde was a Novel Prize Winner in 1913 for
his refrigeration invention and advancements in science of distillation
of the constituent components of air (cryoseparation). In 1897, Carl
Linde gave up his professorship at the Technical University of Munich to
found "Linde's Ice Machine Company." This company made possible one of
the greatest developments of the human culture of all time – summer
beer. Historically, summer beer was contaminated by different warm
tolerant bacteria that fouled the beer. In Bavaria in Linde's early
years, summer brewing of beer was strictly forbidden because of what
would later be understood as bacterial contamination in warm weather.
Linde's refrigerator made summer beer possible. Linde had sold 747 of
his ice machines by 1890. In 1892 Guinness Brewing contracted with Linde
to build a carbon dioxide liquefaction plant. In 1894 Linde began his
famous work liquefying air and distilling it into its constituent
components.
In 1897 Linde was knighted as Ritter von Linde. In 1913 Linde was
awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for his work in refrigeration and
cryoseparation of air.
*Potash/Potassium Carbonate…*A US patent granted in 1904, described a
process for absorbing CO2 in a hot solution of potassium carbonate and
then stripping the solution by pressure reduction without additional
heating (Behrens, 1904).
*Potash/ Lye… *Giammarco was the first to patent an activated potash
solution in 1955, and there are now a number of such processes - Kohl
and Riesenfeld mentions some - they are still widely applied.
*Haber-Bosch process…*This was an extremely important process developed
just before WWI that allowed nitrogen production for use in explosives
and fertilizers, with a key part of the process being the CO2 removal.
It was a German invention because the Allies controlled all the guano
deposits that were the nitrogen source. CO2 is a byproduct of the
process and development of removal processes played an important role in
advanced amine processes today.
*WWII – Lime/Potash and Amines: Keeping our sailors safe from CO2
Poisoning… The history of CO2 removal in submarines begins in World War
II…*"Air monitoring was by colorimetric tubes, soda lime was used to
remove carbon dioxide and oxygen candles provide a source of oxygen
replenishment." With the advent of long submerse times with nuclear
submarines , amines were used to scrub CO2 from submarine air.
Mazurek, Key developments in submarine air monitoring and purification,
SAMAP Proceedings, October 2015.
_https://www.sonistics.com/wp-content/uploads/SAMAP-15-Proceedings.pdf
<https://www.sonistics.com/wp-content/uploads/SAMAP-15-Proceedings.pdf>_
Mention of soda ash and amines…
_https://www.sonistics.com/wp-content/uploads/A-Brief-History-of-Submarine-Air-Quality.pdf
<https://www.sonistics.com/wp-content/uploads/A-Brief-History-of-Submarine-Air-Quality.pdf>_
*Amines… *In 1930, Robert Bottoms was awarded a patent for removing CO2
from air with amines*. *The discovery of amines was first published in
1911 by Kazimierz Funk. Funk was inspired by Christiaan Eijkman work
that showed eating brown rice reduced vulnerability to beri-beri,
compared to those who at normal milled rice. (Beri-beri is a vitamin B
deficiency that causes nerve and heart inflammation.) He was able to
isolate the substance and because it contained an amine group he called
it "vitamine". It was later to be known as vitamin B3 (niacin), though
he thought that it would be thiamine (vitamin B1) and described it as
"anti-beri-beri-factor". Amines have gone on to become one of the most
important chemical groups in all of industry with processes that
include: dyes, nylon, medicines, cooling systems, surfactants,
cosmetics, agrochemicals, corrosion inhibitor, machining fluids, powder
coatings, polyurethane, and epoxy coatings. Amines are a $32 billion
industry in 2023.
(Thanks to Richard Darton, Emeritus Professor, University of Oxford, for
information on the importance of potash in the early development of CO2
processes in industry.)
*1903, Separation of CO2 from air -*
Linde, Patent, Process of producing low temperatures, the liquefaction
of gases, and the separation of the constituents of gaseous mixtures
_https://patents.google.com/patent/US727650A/en
<https://patents.google.com/patent/US727650A/en>_
Carl von Linde,Carl von Linde’s Breakthrough in the Refrigeration
Process, SciHi blog, June 11, 2018
_http://scihi.org/carl-von-linde/#:~:text=Von%20Linde%20discovered%20a%20refrigeration,1913%20Nobel%20Prize%20in%20Physics
<http://scihi.org/carl-von-linde/>_.
Linde Nobel Prize 1913 -
_https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1913/ceremony-speech/
<https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1913/ceremony-speech/>_
125 Years of Linde
_https://www.linde-healthcare.nl/nl/images/chronicle_e%5B1%5D14_9855_tcm170-233340.pdf
<https://www.linde-healthcare.nl/nl/images/chronicle_e%5B1%5D14_9855_tcm170-233340.pdf>_
*1904, Potash/Lye -
Behrens 1904, Patent, Process for manufacturing carbonic acid…
*_https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/ff/69/f6/d02d8bc1768a99/US960788.pdf
<https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/ff/69/f6/d02d8bc1768a99/US960788.pdf>_
*1930, Amines -
Bottoms, Patent, Process for separating acidic gases (amines), 1930…*
_https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/21/dc/33/8f7f493bfaae75/US1783901.pdf
<https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/21/dc/33/8f7f493bfaae75/US1783901.pdf>_
Bruce Melton PE
Director, Climate Change Now Initiative, 501c3
President, Melton Engineering Services Austin
8103 Kirkham Drive
Austin, Texas 78736
(512)799-7998
ClimateDiscovery.orgDan Miller <d...@rodagroup.com>: Aug 20 05:36PM -0400
If Michaux was right, oil production would be rapidly declining now because of peak oil.
For every one ton of lithium we extract, we extract 50,000 tons of oil and 100,000 tons of coal.
As others have said, if we move from a fossil fuel to a renewable-based economy, we would reduce total mining by 500X. It’s hard to comprehend the scale of fossil fuel mining. Renewables are mined once, provide energy or energy storage for 20~30 years, then recycled. Fossil fuels are mine it, use it once, start over.
Lithium is abundant, cooper is getting less so, but we will figure out how to find more or replace it. Same for the other components such as sand, iron, etc.
For example, it is often said that hydrogen electrolyzers can’t scale because there is literally not enough iridium in the world to build more than a small amount. But companies like Ecolectro <https://www.ecolectro.com/> have figured out how to build electrolyzers without using rare metals.
What we can’t do is continue to emit CO2 and other GHGs into the atmosphere. We are already passed that limit.
Dan
On Aug 20, 2023, at 11:40 AM, Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dan
Do you have a view on Michaux's argument <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Simon-Michaux-2/publication/351712079_The_Mining_of_Minerals_and_the_Limits_to_Growth/links/60a6273d45851505a0e4ddcf/The-Mining-of-Minerals-and-the-Limits-to-Growth.pdf>that the low EROI of renewables is such that there aren't enough metals in the ground to build a renewable energy infrastructure to replace fossil fuel, at least not with existing technologies? And that recycling is not thermodynamically viable at scale.
Regards
Robert
On 20/08/2023 16:13, Dan Miller wrote:
Dan Miller <d...@rodagroup.com>: Aug 20 05:52PM -0400
See my responses below in blue.
Dan
On Aug 20, 2023, at 1:43 PM, Clive Elsworth <Cl...@EndorphinSoftware.co.uk> wrote:
Dan
Thanks for the ambient carbon link, which mentions using Cl2 which splits in the presence of light. It produces HCl (and CO2 and H2O), and each Cl atom removes one methane molecule. (BTW we’ve known David Miller several years.)
What we have been proposing for the atmosphere is using a photocatalytic cycle, in which each chlorine atom gets recycled many times to remove many methane molecules – we estimate around 1000 with our latest proposed aerosol formulation.
Solar PV and renewables
I wonder what the embedded CO2 is in this cheap solar PV? China appears quite happy to install ever more coal power for any of its manufacturing. - China is also installing far more renewable energy than the rest of the world. Last year alone, they installed more wind energy than any other country has in total, except the US. China is probably on a better path to renewables than the US, as the US per-capita use of fossil fuels in much higher than China’s. They (like everyone else) will eventually make all there renewable energy products using renewable energy.
RethinkX seems to think any location is suitable for renewables, which doesn’t seem credible to me for places that are not very windy or sunny. The cost of transmission then becomes a constraint. The mining of ever lower grade ores to satisfy renewables’ (and the associated grid’s) voracious appetite for resources per unit of energy generation capacity looks ecologically damaging to me, not to mention a health hazard to those who live nearby or work in the mines. - Almost anywhere (except, perhaps, the poles) can run on 100% RE. Besides RethinkX, Mark Jacobson at Stanford has shown how RE can be used anywhere. There is lots of research on that (Mark recently published links to many papers on that).
Moltex Energy foresee a future complementing renewables by peaking during the troughs. They have no fear of their power stations becoming stranded assets. They also don’t see the (for now) declining cost of lithium batteries threatening their GridReserve heat storage. Other storage types maybe. But heat storage in nitrate salt tanks is cheap, and they’ll just replace those with whatever becomes cheaper. - there are lots of exciting developments underway in energy storage. I think lithium (and now sodium) batteries will keep coming down in price (90% reduction in the last decade) which will give others a run for their money. Small things that can be made in very high volumes benefit from learning curves, as we are seeing now with batteries and solar PV.
But whether a mix of energy sources, or renewables wins out it’s good news if energy becomes cheap all around the world, because that ought eventually to enable the politicians to enact carbon pricing to phase out fossil fuels. That is the important point here. - Fee and Dividend carbon pricing is the second best way to get rid of fossil fuels. The best way is to phase them out over a short timeframe. When we found out that asbestos was kling people, we didn’t put a fee on it, we just banned it. We can’t ban FF overnight, but we can over 10~20 years, depending on the application. Cars in 10 years, electricity in 15, everything else in 20.
But let’s not hold our breaths, and not forget the need for immediate cooling of the oceans.
Clive
From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <mailto:carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <mailto:carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>> On Behalf Of Dan Miller
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2023 4:14 PM
To: Clive Elsworth <Cl...@EndorphinSoftware.co.uk <mailto:Cl...@EndorphinSoftware.co.uk>>
Cc: Michael Hayes <electro...@gmail.com <mailto:electro...@gmail.com>>; Peter Eisenberger <peter.ei...@gmail.com <mailto:peter.ei...@gmail.com>>; Chris Van Arsdale <cvana...@google.com <mailto:cvana...@google.com>>; Gregory Slater <ten...@gmail.com <mailto:ten...@gmail.com>>; Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com <mailto:CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>>; via NOAC Meetings <noac-m...@googlegroups.com <mailto:noac-m...@googlegroups.com>>; David S. Miller <da...@ambientcarbon.com <mailto:da...@ambientcarbon.com>>
Subject: [CDR] Re: 20 point plan
See my responses in blue.
On Aug 20, 2023, at 3:25 AM, Clive Elsworth <Cl...@EndorphinSoftware.co.uk <mailto:Cl...@EndorphinSoftware.co.uk>> wrote:
Dan
Thanks for your 20-point plan. Questions and comments:
How can new fossil fuel infrastructure be banned in China or any country other than your own? - It’s a *global* plan.
For fee and dividend to work it must essentially be global, which means either sufficiently strong border adjustment inducements, or going straight to a global carbon price, preferably also rising gradually. That would incentivise development of cost-effective, zero carbon power sources like nothing else. - yes, F&D should be global & can be via boarder adjustments. See my TEDx talk: https://youtu.be/0k2-SzlDGko
I don’t see in your list a plan to ‘fast track’ the development of Generation 4 nuclear power, some of which is estimated to generate electricity cheaper than fossil fuels: $35/MWh baseload, $54/MWh peaked i.e. driven from heat storage. Some can also supply ~800oC process heat for around $10/MWh. The capital cost is ~$2/Watt or probably less. Currently the First of a Kind reactor is expected to begin operating in the UK around 2030 (the MoltexFLEX reactor). - Nuclear is safe, but it is much more expensive than renewables and takes much longer to install. By the time that Gen4/SMR are available, solar PV will cost $0.01/kWh and batteries will cost a fraction of what they do now (which is 10% of what they cost 10~15 years ago). See: https://www.rethinkx.com/energy
It’s great to see you listing funding for R&D into solar radiation management. We believe there is great scope for doing that in the troposphere by increasing the amount of haze and brightening clouds, mainly in the tropics and subtropics. Cooling the oceans where they are hottest would cool the rest of them, including the polar regions. - With an AMOC collapse *expected* around mid-century, we are going to need to fast track SMR deployment!
Do you have a cost estimate for plugging all methane leaks? Reuters estimates <https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-drilling-abandoned-specialreport-idUSKBN23N1NL> there are around 29 million abandoned oil/gas world internationally, and more than 3.2 million in the USA. - I don’t have a cost estimate for plugging the leaks but I am quite sure the cost is much less than the cost of *not* plugging them!
What about the main methane sources, which are wetlands and agriculture, with melting permafrost likely increasing to become significant, not to mention the threat of shallow seabed melting permafrost? - That’s bad too and it is one of the reasons we need to deploy SMR soon!
Are you open to the idea of enhancing the natural atmospheric methane sink? The putative description of part of this mechanism done by chlorine radicals from dust particles in the Oeste et al 2017 paper was recently measured and described here: https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2303974120. Mimicking this mechanism would (subject to further testing and modelling) also remove other oxidable short-lived climate forcing agents, the main other ones being tropospheric ozone and black carbon aerosol. Research is ongoing into this, but we could sure use more funding. - I haven’t looked into that specifically, but my brother runs a company that mimics the natural destruction of methane in order to eradicate methane from low-concentration sources: https://ambientcarbon.com <https://ambientcarbon.com/>
Clive
From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <mailto:carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <mailto:carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>> On Behalf Of Dan Miller
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2023 3:56 AM
To: Michael Hayes <electro...@gmail.com <mailto:electro...@gmail.com>>
Cc: Peter Eisenberger <peter.ei...@gmail.com <mailto:peter.ei...@gmail.com>>; Chris Van Arsdale <cvana...@google.com <mailto:cvana...@google.com>>; Gregory Slater <ten...@gmail.com <mailto:ten...@gmail.com>>; Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com <mailto:CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>>
Subject: Re: [CDR] Summary of current price per kg of DAC and other CDR technologies....
I would suggest that current numbers for cost of CDR are not meaningful. These are numbers for kiloton per year capture vs. the needed gigaton per year (1,000,000X more). Learning curves should bring the cost down by about an order of magnitude or more.
And I don’t understand the discussion of “cost effectiveness” for CDR. It’s bit like asking about the cost effectiveness of heart bypass surgery. Without it, you’re dead. How do you calculate the ROI?
The bottom line is that the cost of doing CDR at scale (I estimate it’s $2T/year for -40 Gt/y) is much less than the cost of *not* doing it. So, from that point of view, it’s very cost effective.
And, no, there is not a tradeoff between CDR and emissions reduction using renewable energy. An emissions reduction only approach leads to >2ºC warming which is catastrophic. So CDR is required on top of the most aggressive emissions reduction we can muster. Emissions reduction only also leads to an AMOC collapse around mid-century, so SRM is also required.
I notice that a lot of the negative discussion around CDR recently assumes we will not have any serious policy to fight climate change. That is why they think a dollar spent on CDR is a dollar not spent on RE. They also worry that CDR will give FF companies more social license to continue their business. It’s like we are asking FF companies to "pretty please" reduce their business. This makes sense since we currently have no serious policy in place to fight climate change and we continue to choose to fail, as Kevin Anderson puts it. Well, I have news for everyone. If we continue to choose to fail, we will fail!
But we can choose to succeed and put serious policies in place to quickly phase out fossil fuels, scale up CDR, and get going with SRM. Notice that I didn’t mention RE there. If we phase out FF, then RE will take its place. No need to subsidize it (which results in more RE than we need).
Once again, here is my suggested 20-point policy plan to fight climate change, in case we choose to succeed.
Dan
<image001.jpg>
On Aug 19, 2023, at 8:48 PM, Michael Hayes <electro...@gmail.com <mailto:electro...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Peter, et al.,
The NOAA mCDR team is already doing a deep evaluation of mCDR methods. If anything, they are creating a template for non mCDR methods to follow.
Best regards
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com <mailto:CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com>.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CANx_M7Sx0Opks%2BZp5huBEui5RRkSMr1mB4pXdNc%3D8MBqBjMuug%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CANx_M7Sx0Opks%2BZp5huBEui5RRkSMr1mB4pXdNc%3D8MBqBjMuug%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com <mailto:CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CABjtO1cv%3DA-%2BdjNWPVJ2emJNiDdkvp9nna3StLhE%2BhwUe8FKzQ%40mail.gmail.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CABjtO1cv%3DA-%2BdjNWPVJ2emJNiDdkvp9nna3StLhE%2BhwUe8FKzQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com <mailto:CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/B9A3C784-80BB-432C-BF68-4C66512FA892%40rodagroup.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/B9A3C784-80BB-432C-BF68-4C66512FA892%40rodagroup.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com <mailto:CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/9CB1724A-A74F-487E-94CB-08FE34457AAE%40rodagroup.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/9CB1724A-A74F-487E-94CB-08FE34457AAE%40rodagroup.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>: Aug 20 11:54PM +0100
Hi Dan
I'm definitely outside my comfort zone here. I'm going to have invest a
bit of time and intellectual energy in getting to grips with all this
stuff. My natural inclination is to resist suggestions that we have
access to a bottomless pit of resources My guess is that we will have
to tailor our wants to match the available resources. But that implies
that we will have to forego some things because the resources will not
be available in sufficient quantity or quality.
I really struggle to imagine a world in which there will be sufficient
resources to enable all 8 billion and more to enjoy the same or better
standard of living enjoyed by today's better off. Unending material
growth on a finite planet just doesn't compute for me. I haven't yet
considered plundering other planets' resources to keep our Earthbound
dreams coming true. But I also know that the devil is in the detail.
I also wonder whether the full environmental and social costs of
acquiring these future resources has been factored in or whether yet
again, we're assuming that the cost of these raw materials is limited to
the engineering cost of extracting them.
On a pedantic semantic note, am I alone in really being annoyed by the
now very common practice of referring to reducing things by multiples of
themselves? If we reduce mining by 500X, wouldn't we end up with -499X
as much mining as we now have, i.e. we'd be busy refilling all the
pits? What's so difficult about saying it'd be reduced to one five
hundredth of its present amount or by 99.8%? I put this in the same
category as that awful expression about 'not disagreeing', which, when
deconstructed, means absolutely nothing. I know, this is my problem and
somehow I need to deal with it! 😉
See comments in red below. As a general observation, I'm very wary
about the Promethean assumption that there's a technological fix for all
our problems.
Regards
Robert
On 20/08/2023 22:36, Dan Miller wrote:
"Anderson, Paul" <psan...@ilstu.edu>: Aug 21 12:44AM
I do not find a link to a "20-point plan" that is being praised. Please provide the link.
Paul
Doc / Dr TLUD / Paul S. Anderson, PhD
Email: psan...@ilstu.edu<mailto:psan...@ilstu.edu> Skype: paultlud Mobile & WhatsApp: 309-531-4434
Website: https://woodgas.com<https://woodgas.com/> see Resources page for 2023 "Roadmap for Climate Intervention with Biochar" and 2020 white paper, 2) RoCC kilns, and 3) TLUD stove technology.
From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Dan Miller
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2023 4:37 PM
To: Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>
Cc: Clive Elsworth <Cl...@EndorphinSoftware.co.uk>; Michael Hayes <electro...@gmail.com>; Peter Eisenberger <peter.ei...@gmail.com>; Chris Van Arsdale <cvana...@google.com>; Gregory Slater <ten...@gmail.com>; Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>; via NOAC Meetings <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; David S. Miller <da...@ambientcarbon.com>
Subject: Re: [CDR] 20 point plan
This message originated from outside of the Illinois State University email system. Learn why this is important<https://help.illinoisstate.edu/technology/page-88179827.html>
If Michaux was right, oil production would be rapidly declining now because of peak oil.
For every one ton of lithium we extract, we extract 50,000 tons of oil and 100,000 tons of coal.
As others have said, if we move from a fossil fuel to a renewable-based economy, we would reduce total mining by 500X. It's hard to comprehend the scale of fossil fuel mining. Renewables are mined once, provide energy or energy storage for 20~30 years, then recycled. Fossil fuels are mine it, use it once, start over.
Lithium is abundant, cooper is getting less so, but we will figure out how to find more or replace it. Same for the other components such as sand, iron, etc.
For example, it is often said that hydrogen electrolyzers can't scale because there is literally not enough iridium in the world to build more than a small amount. But companies like Ecolectro<https://www.ecolectro.com/> have figured out how to build electrolyzers without using rare metals.
What we can't do is continue to emit CO2 and other GHGs into the atmosphere. We are already passed that limit.
Dan
On Aug 20, 2023, at 11:40 AM, Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com<mailto:robert...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Dan
Do you have a view on Michaux's argument <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Simon-Michaux-2/publication/351712079_The_Mining_of_Minerals_and_the_Limits_to_Growth/links/60a6273d45851505a0e4ddcf/The-Mining-of-Minerals-and-the-Limits-to-Growth.pdf> that the low EROI of renewables is such that there aren't enough metals in the ground to build a renewable energy infrastructure to replace fossil fuel, at least not with existing technologies? And that recycling is not thermodynamically viable at scale.
Regards
Robert
On 20/08/2023 16:13, Dan Miller wrote:
Nuclear is safe, but it is much more expensive than renewables and takes much longer to install. By the time that Gen4/SMR are available, solar PV will cost $0.01/kWh and batteries will cost a fraction of what they do now (which is 10% of what they cost 10~15 years ago). See: https://www.rethinkx.com/energy
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com<mailto:CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/F571B570-DA9C-4CF0-9676-1DD3FE3D0993%40rodagroup.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/F571B570-DA9C-4CF0-9676-1DD3FE3D0993%40rodagroup.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
Dan Miller <d...@rodagroup.com>: Aug 20 10:02PM -0400
Here you go…

On Aug 20, 2023, at 7:58 PM, Admin <peterc...@shaw.ca> wrote:
This 20 point plan is for sure the best I have come across
The emergency is more than dire - getting worse fast
Earth Energy Imbalance increased 50% past 10 years (WMO) Rate of imbalance doubled.
All 3 GHGs are at record high and increasing at record rates
July year-on-year atmospheric CO2 increases was a big record at 3.29 ppm. Record annual CO2 is 2016 big El Nino 3.03 ppm (NOAA Mauna Loa)
Atmospheric CO2 highest 4 million years NOAA (if not 15 million)
CO2 increase rate unprecedented, 4–5 times faster than during the last 56 million years (IPCC AR6, WG1, 5-676)
Atmospheric methane explosive increase from 2020- by wetland methane feedback emissions
At present global methane emissions are highest ever. Mostly big wetland increase, and increasing. Some permafrost and some methane from Kara Sea hydrate
Methane Mauna Loa 1925 ppb (confirmed) Same Rapid increase rate today. Highest confirmed methane East Trout Lake (N. Canada) 1950 ppb
Euan Nesbit July 23 'Atmospheric Methane: Comparison Between Methane's Record in 2006–2022 and During Glacial Termination’ Terrifying. What we feared when AMEG started up
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2023GB007875
July record month warming 1.42°C GISS (much higher by Berkeley Earth)
Land only 1.73°C
Hottest in 125,000 years
N. Hemisphere was 1.69°C
SST increasing at record rate, to this day. Marine heat waves 48% of ocean surface (NOAA). Phytoplankon mass crashes under marine heat waves
Land carbon sink efficiency declined 15% past 10 years Ocean sink by 5% (Global Carbon Project)
Ocean pH 8.06 Off Japan, Japan Met, 31 Jan 2023. Acification rate fastest 300 million years
Ocean oxygen decline 2% since 1950s (IUCN Dec 2019)
So- Push this 20 point plan
Best regards
Peter C
Dan Miller <d...@rodagroup.com>: Aug 20 10:10PM -0400
Thanks for liking the plan. I first wrote it because I hadn’t come across a comprehensive policy plan, only plans to push one idea or another. But after I wrote it, I realized I wasn’t that smart and all these policies are fairly obvious, yet we aren’t doing them at all. So I pondered that for awhile and came up withe following “Barriers to Climate Action” which I think is a far more daunting list:

On Aug 20, 2023, at 7:58 PM, Admin <peterc...@shaw.ca> wrote:
This 20 point plan is for sure the best I have come across
The emergency is more than dire - getting worse fast
Earth Energy Imbalance increased 50% past 10 years (WMO) Rate of imbalance doubled.
All 3 GHGs are at record high and increasing at record rates
July year-on-year atmospheric CO2 increases was a big record at 3.29 ppm. Record annual CO2 is 2016 big El Nino 3.03 ppm (NOAA Mauna Loa)
Atmospheric CO2 highest 4 million years NOAA (if not 15 million)
CO2 increase rate unprecedented, 4–5 times faster than during the last 56 million years (IPCC AR6, WG1, 5-676)
Atmospheric methane explosive increase from 2020- by wetland methane feedback emissions
At present global methane emissions are highest ever. Mostly big wetland increase, and increasing. Some permafrost and some methane from Kara Sea hydrate
Methane Mauna Loa 1925 ppb (confirmed) Same Rapid increase rate today. Highest confirmed methane East Trout Lake (N. Canada) 1950 ppb
Euan Nesbit July 23 'Atmospheric Methane: Comparison Between Methane's Record in 2006–2022 and During Glacial Termination’ Terrifying. What we feared when AMEG started up
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2023GB007875
July record month warming 1.42°C GISS (much higher by Berkeley Earth)
Land only 1.73°C
Hottest in 125,000 years
N. Hemisphere was 1.69°C
SST increasing at record rate, to this day. Marine heat waves 48% of ocean surface (NOAA). Phytoplankon mass crashes under marine heat waves
Land carbon sink efficiency declined 15% past 10 years Ocean sink by 5% (Global Carbon Project)
Ocean pH 8.06 Off Japan, Japan Met, 31 Jan 2023. Acification rate fastest 300 million years
Ocean oxygen decline 2% since 1950s (IUCN Dec 2019)
So- Push this 20 point plan
Best regards
Peter C
Dan Miller <d...@rodagroup.com>: Aug 20 10:40PM -0400
I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not suggesting we can live the same lives we did before and happily go on making more and more stuff. I’m thinking more about a WW2 style of focusing a sizable amount of our resources to fight the enemy: climate change. In WW2, people sacrificed to provide resources to the war effort. But I don’t think that CDR takes away from renewables, though it might take away from 1000s of other things we make that we don’t need. Some examples I gave are cruise ships, Marvel movies, and golf carts, but those are only examples.
My point is that if we choose to go all-in to fight climate change we can do things that won’t happen under the current approach of subsidizing renewables (but subsidizing fossil fuels much more!) and then crossing our fingers and hoping for the best.
It still will be difficult and we may face societal collapse before we get the infrastructure in place. We likely will need to start SRM soon to fight off an AMOC collapse (expected in 20~30 years!) that I describe as the mother of all near-term tipping points.
But my other point is that digging up fossil fuels is a more difficult task than making renewables. All the easy oil has already been accessed yet we continue to spend more and more to find more, including tar sands which is really nasty and expensive to convert to oil. So we can find more cooper, lithium, etc. That will not stop us.
But we waited too long to take action so bad things are happening already and worse is on the way. But if don’t act, things will get much worse than bad, with a collapse of society/civilization sooner than most people think is possible.
If you haven’t seen it, I suggest you watch Paul Gildings 2012 TED talk, The Earth is Full: https://www.ted.com/talks/paul_gilding_the_earth_is_full?language=en
It’s our job to prove Paul wrong. So far he is correct and we are ignoring his message.
I’ll also leave you with a quote from climate scientist Kevin Anderson.

Dan
On Aug 20, 2023, at 6:54 PM, Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Dan
I'm definitely outside my comfort zone here. I'm going to have invest a bit of time and intellectual energy in getting to grips with all this stuff. My natural inclination is to resist suggestions that we have access to a bottomless pit of resources My guess is that we will have to tailor our wants to match the available resources. But that implies that we will have to forego some things because the resources will not be available in sufficient quantity or quality.
I really struggle to imagine a world in which there will be sufficient resources to enable all 8 billion and more to enjoy the same or better standard of living enjoyed by today's better off. Unending material growth on a finite planet just doesn't compute for me. I haven't yet considered plundering other planets' resources to keep our Earthbound dreams coming true. But I also know that the devil is in the detail.
I also wonder whether the full environmental and social costs of acquiring these future resources has been factored in or whether yet again, we're assuming that the cost of these raw materials is limited to the engineering cost of extracting them.
On a pedantic semantic note, am I alone in really being annoyed by the now very common practice of referring to reducing things by multiples of themselves? If we reduce mining by 500X, wouldn't we end up with -499X as much mining as we now have, i.e. we'd be busy refilling all the pits? What's so difficult about saying it'd be reduced to one five hundredth of its present amount or by 99.8%? I put this in the same category as that awful expression about 'not disagreeing', which, when deconstructed, means absolutely nothing. I know, this is my problem and somehow I need to deal with it! 😉
See comments in red below. As a general observation, I'm very wary about the Promethean assumption that there's a technological fix for all our problems.
Regards
Robert
On 20/08/2023 22:36, Dan Miller wrote:
Oeste <oe...@gm-ingenieurbuero.com>: Aug 21 09:35AM +0200
To my opinions at least two additions are necessary to the action plan
* Change your headline as like as: */Reduce atmospheric greenhouse
gases & cool the Earth/*. It is necessary to reduce also methane and
other volatile organic carbons next to CO2. Therefore add also the
atmospheric methane and CO2 depletion methods by photosensitive
aerosols and the methods of cloud brightening by cloud condensation
nuclei aerosols
* Expand your headline as like as: */Phase-out fossile fuels (FF) for
all processes which produce greenhouse gas as for instance
combustion processes/*. Why to expand this headline? Because fossil
fuels may transformed into green energy precursors like hydrogen
without any greenhouse gas generation and probably with less energy
consumption than by electrolysis. Because this part of fossile fuel
use should not banned. Hence you need some FF infrastructure.
Mention: If you ban also this use of FF also the side products of
this green FF branch: soot and bitumen which are necessary for road
pavement and tyre preduction must generated from concrete and
natural rubber. Well-known is the need of much energy for cement
calcination and the large need of agricultural land surface for
rubber plant plantations.
Franz Oeste
gM-Ingenieurbüro
Am 20.08.2023 um 04:56 schrieb Dan Miller:
"Jim Baird" <jim....@gwmitigation.com>: Aug 21 06:53AM -0700
This is techno pessimism to the extreme.
Global warming is an excess of energy that Thermodynamic Geoengineering breaks up into manageable and beneficial tranches.
Per the attached, the primary materials required to implement this solution, Magnesium, Calcium and Lithium exist in the oceans in multiples of at least 50,000 compared to the reserves on the land. And the oceans contain a 700,000 year supply of Chromium which is required for the metal oxide catalysts <https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-023-01195-x> that can dynamically split water molecules and capture hydroxyl anions with existing electrolyzer designs and there is twice that available from the land.
Talk about checking out the mouth of the gift horse?
It seems to me you’d rather shoot it?
From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com On Behalf Of Dan Miller
Sent: August 20, 2023 7:40 PM
To: Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>
Cc: Clive Elsworth <Cl...@EndorphinSoftware.co.uk>; Michael Hayes <electro...@gmail.com>; Peter Eisenberger <peter.ei...@gmail.com>; Chris Van Arsdale <cvana...@google.com>; Gregory Slater <ten...@gmail.com>; Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>; via NOAC Meetings <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; David S. Miller <da...@ambientcarbon.com>
Subject: Re: [CDR] 20 point plan
I think you are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not suggesting we can live the same lives we did before and happily go on making more and more stuff. I’m thinking more about a WW2 style of focusing a sizable amount of our resources to fight the enemy: climate change. In WW2, people sacrificed to provide resources to the war effort. But I don’t think that CDR takes away from renewables, though it might take away from 1000s of other things we make that we don’t need. Some examples I gave are cruise ships, Marvel movies, and golf carts, but those are only examples.
My point is that if we choose to go all-in to fight climate change we can do things that won’t happen under the current approach of subsidizing renewables (but subsidizing fossil fuels much more!) and then crossing our fingers and hoping for the best.
It still will be difficult and we may face societal collapse before we get the infrastructure in place. We likely will need to start SRM soon to fight off an AMOC collapse (expected in 20~30 years!) that I describe as the mother of all near-term tipping points.
But my other point is that digging up fossil fuels is a more difficult task than making renewables. All the easy oil has already been accessed yet we continue to spend more and more to find more, including tar sands which is really nasty and expensive to convert to oil. So we can find more cooper, lithium, etc. That will not stop us.
But we waited too long to take action so bad things are happening already and worse is on the way. But if don’t act, things will get much worse than bad, with a collapse of society/civilization sooner than most people think is possible.
If you haven’t seen it, I suggest you watch Paul Gildings 2012 TED talk, The Earth is Full: https://www.ted.com/talks/paul_gilding_the_earth_is_full?language=en
It’s our job to prove Paul wrong. So far he is correct and we are ignoring his message.
I’ll also leave you with a quote from climate scientist Kevin Anderson.
Dan
On Aug 20, 2023, at 6:54 PM, Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com <mailto:robert...@gmail.com> > wrote:
Hi Dan
I'm definitely outside my comfort zone here. I'm going to have invest a bit of time and intellectual energy in getting to grips with all this stuff. My natural inclination is to resist suggestions that we have access to a bottomless pit of resources My guess is that we will have to tailor our wants to match the available resources. But that implies that we will have to forego some things because the resources will not be available in sufficient quantity or quality.
I really struggle to imagine a world in which there will be sufficient resources to enable all 8 billion and more to enjoy the same or better standard of living enjoyed by today's better off. Unending material growth on a finite planet just doesn't compute for me. I haven't yet considered plundering other planets' resources to keep our Earthbound dreams coming true. But I also know that the devil is in the detail.
I also wonder whether the full environmental and social costs of acquiring these future resources has been factored in or whether yet again, we're assuming that the cost of these raw materials is limited to the engineering cost of extracting them.
On a pedantic semantic note, am I alone in really being annoyed by the now very common practice of referring to reducing things by multiples of themselves? If we reduce mining by 500X, wouldn't we end up with -499X as much mining as we now have, i.e. we'd be busy refilling all the pits? What's so difficult about saying it'd be reduced to one five hundredth of its present amount or by 99.8%? I put this in the same category as that awful expression about 'not disagreeing', which, when deconstructed, means absolutely nothing. I know, this is my problem and somehow I need to deal with it! 😉
See comments in red below. As a general observation, I'm very wary about the Promethean assumption that there's a technological fix for all our problems.
Regards
Robert
On 20/08/2023 22:36, Dan Miller wrote:
If Michaux was right, oil production would be rapidly declining now because of peak oil. Why couldn't it peak and stay ythere rather than declining? There's a difference between the resource being exhausted and it being abandoned n favour of successor materials.
For every one ton of lithium we extract, we extract 50,000 tons of oil and 100,000 tons of coal. So what?
As others have said, if we move from a fossil fuel to a renewable-based economy, we would reduce total mining by 500X. It’s hard to comprehend the scale of fossil fuel mining. Renewables are mined once, provide energy or energy storage for 20~30 years, then recycled. Fossil fuels are mine it, use it once, start over. I think the point that Michaux is making is that the physical infrasture required for renewable that provide the same amount of usable energy as fossil fuels currently do, requires more raw materials than will be available. He also says that the amount of recycling is much l;ess than the rhetoric would have us believe. I find your comment about about fossil fuels (if I'm correcting your typo correctly to the effect that you're saying that fossil fuels are single use resources) is misleading because what you should be comparing is the production infrastructure, the oil well, the coal mine, to the solar panel and wind turbine installations.
Lithium is abundant, cooper is getting less so, but we will figure out how to find more or replace it. Same for the other components such as sand, iron, etc. Obviously if sufficient individual resources are no longer available we will have find more or replace them. It is an article of faith that resource constraints will never hold back 'progress'. It is probably wise not to approach these issues in a reductive manner.
For example, it is often said that hydrogen electrolyzers can’t scale because there is literally not enough iridium in the world to build more than a small amount. But companies like Ecolectro <https://www.ecolectro.com/> have figured out how to build electrolyzers without using rare metals. Great, but that doesn't mean that every shortage can be magicked away by innovation. I'm not familiar with what Ecoelectro are doing but I'd need to be satisfied that they were factoring in all the costs, including the indirect environmental and social costs, of whatever their innovation enatils.
What we can’t do is continue to emit CO2 and other GHGs into the atmosphere. We are already passed that limit.
Dan
On Aug 20, 2023, at 11:40 AM, Robert Chris <mailto:robert...@gmail.com> <robert...@gmail.com> wrote:
Dan
Do you have a view on Michaux's argument <https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Simon-Michaux-2/publication/351712079_The_Mining_of_Minerals_and_the_Limits_to_Growth/links/60a6273d45851505a0e4ddcf/The-Mining-of-Minerals-and-the-Limits-to-Growth.pdf> that the low EROI of renewables is such that there aren't enough metals in the ground to build a renewable energy infrastructure to replace fossil fuel, at least not with existing technologies? And that recycling is not thermodynamically viable at scale.
Regards
Robert
On 20/08/2023 16:13, Dan Miller wrote:
Nuclear is safe, but it is much more expensive than renewables and takes much longer to install. By the time that Gen4/SMR are available, solar PV will cost $0.01/kWh and batteries will cost a fraction of what they do now (which is 10% of what they cost 10~15 years ago). See: https://www.rethinkx.com/energy
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com <mailto:CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com> .
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/780E63AA-932F-4E6C-A508-138E3E46C69D%40rodagroup.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/780E63AA-932F-4E6C-A508-138E3E46C69D%40rodagroup.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> .
Geoengineering News <geoengine...@gmail.com>: Aug 21 03:36PM +0500
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0009254123003741
*Authors*
Amanda R. Stubbs, Ian M. Power, Carlos Paulo, Baolin Wang, Nina Zeyen,
Sasha Wilson, Evelyn Mervine, Chris Gunning
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chemgeo.2023.121674
*19 August 2023*
*Abstract*
Enhanced rock weathering is a proposed CO2 removal strategy for mitigating
climate change; its implementation can be facilitated by improving carbon
verification methods. In this study, weathering experiments exposed
brucite, wollastonite skarn, serpentinite, and kimberlite residues (Venetia
Diamond Mine, South Africa), to wetting and drying cycles (4/day) for 1 yr
to elucidate reaction pathways and rates while evaluating carbon
verification tools, including mineral quantification, total inorganic
carbon (TIC), and stable and radiogenic carbon isotopes. Two primary
reaction pathways were identified: A) silicate and hydroxide dissolution
leading to carbonate precipitation (desirable), and B) dissolution and
reprecipitation of carbonates (undesirable). The kimberlite residues,
containing serpentine (19–33 wt%) and calcite (4–5 wt%), experienced
variable and minor changes in total inorganic carbon. The δ13C and δ18O
values of the carbonate minerals approached those expected for
atmospheric-derived CO2 and are best explained by the exchange of carbonate
CO2 with atmospheric CO2 (pathway A) as opposed to net CO2 sequestration.
In contrast, the reaction of brucite (1.22% to 5.98%) and wollastonite
skarn (0.22% to 1.01%) with atmospheric CO2 was substantial, as indicated
by the increases in TIC (pathway B) yet decreases in δ13C values were
inconsistent with the incorporation of atmospheric CO2 as a result of
kinetic isotope fractionation due to carbonation being CO2 supply limited.
The pulverized serpentinite experience insufficient carbonation to be
detected by TIC. Unweathered (blue ground) and naturally weathered (yellow
ground) kimberlite from the Voorspoed Diamond Mine, South Africa were
compared to kimberlite residues used in experiments. Yellow ground
contained twice the TIC content compared to blue ground whereas
quantitative scanning electron microscopy revealed calcite veinlets that
are characteristic of secondary mineralization. While the blue and yellow
ground samples were essentially radiocarbon dead (0.03 and 0.05 F14C,
respectively), substantial modern carbon was incorporated into the
kimberlite (up to +0.27 F14C; CO2 exchange), brucite (+0.55 F14C), and
wollastonite skarn (+0.53 F14C; CO2 sequestration) powders during
weathering experiments. Although stable and radiogenic carbon isotopes have
been used to verify the mineralization of atmospheric CO2, these methods
are affected by CO2 exchange and kinetic fractionation effects during
weathering that can be misleading and, thus, should not be relied on as
sole methods for carbon verification.
*Source: ScienceDirect*
Geoengineering News <geoengine...@gmail.com>: Aug 21 04:13AM +0500
https://bg.copernicus.org/articles/20/3459/2023/
*Authors*
Nele Lehmann <nele.l...@hereon.de>, Hugues Lantuit, Michael Ernst
Böttcher, Jens Hartmann, Antje Eulenburg, and Helmuth Thomas
<helmuth...@hereon.de>
How to cite.
Lehmann, N., Lantuit, H., Böttcher, M. E., Hartmann, J., Eulenburg, A., and
Thomas, H.: Alkalinity generation from carbonate weathering in a
silicate-dominated headwater catchment at Iskorasfjellet, northern Norway,
Biogeosciences, 20, 3459–3479, https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-20-3459-2023,
2023.
Received: 12 Oct 2022 – Discussion started: 02 Nov 2022 – Revised: 23 Mar
2023 – Accepted: 21 Jun 2023 – *Published: 18 Aug 2023*
*Abstract*
The weathering rate of carbonate minerals is several orders of magnitude
higher than for silicate minerals. Therefore, small amounts of carbonate
minerals have the potential to control the dissolved weathering loads in
silicate-dominated catchments. Both weathering processes produce alkalinity
under the consumption of CO2. Given that only alkalinity generation from
silicate weathering is thought to be a long-term sink for CO2, a
misattributed weathering source could lead to incorrect conclusions about
long- and short-term CO2 fixation. In this study, we aimed to identify the
weathering sources responsible for alkalinity generation and CO2 fixation
across watershed scales in a degrading permafrost landscape in northern
Norway, 68.7–70.5∘ N, and on a temporal scale, in a subarctic headwater
catchment on the mountainside of Iskorasfjellet, characterized by sporadic
permafrost and underlain mainly by silicates as the alkalinity-bearing
lithology. By analyzing total alkalinity (AT) and dissolved inorganic
carbon (DIC) concentrations, as well as the stable isotope signature of the
latter (*δ*13C-DIC), in conjunction with dissolved cation and anion loads,
we found that AT was almost entirely derived from weathering of the sparse
carbonate minerals. We propose that in the headwater catchment the riparian
zone is a hotspot area of AT generation and release due to its enhanced
hydrological connectivity and that the weathering load contribution from
the uphill catchment is limited by insufficient contact time of weathering
agents and weatherable materials. By using stable water isotopes, it was
possible to explain temporal variations in AT concentrations following a
precipitation event due to surface runoff. In addition to carbonic acid,
sulfuric acid, probably originating from oxidation of pyrite or reduced
sulfur in wetlands or from acid deposition, is shown to be a potential
corrosive reactant. An increased proportion of sulfuric acid as a potential
weathering agent may have resulted in a decrease in AT. Therefore,
carbonate weathering in the studied area should be considered not only as a
short-term CO2 sink but also as a potential CO2 source. Finally, we found
that AT increased with decreasing permafrost probability, and attributed
this relation to an increased water storage capacity associated with
increasing contact of weathering agent and rock surfaces and enhanced
microbial activity. As both soil respiration and permafrost thaw are
expected to increase with climate change, increasing the availability of
weathering agents in the form of CO2 and water storage capacity,
respectively, we suggest that future weathering rates and alkalinity
generation will increase concomitantly in the study area.
*Source: European Geosciences Union*
Geoengineering News <geoengine...@gmail.com>: Aug 20 11:36PM +0500
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acsenvironau.3c00010
*Authors*
- Pranjali Priyadarshini
- ,
- Guanhe Rim
- ,
- Cornelia Rosu
- ,
- MinGyu Song
- , and
- Christopher W. Jones
*29 June 2023*
https://doi.org/10.1021/acsenvironau.3c00010
*Abstract*
Rising CO2 emissions are responsible for increasing global temperatures
causing climate change. Significant efforts are underway to develop
amine-based sorbents to directly capture CO2 from air (called direct air
capture (DAC)) to combat the effects of climate change. However, the
sorbents’ performances have usually been evaluated at ambient temperatures
(25 °C) or higher, most often under dry conditions. A significant portion
of the natural environment where DAC plants can be deployed experiences
temperatures below 25 °C, and ambient air always contains some humidity. In
this study, we assess the CO2 adsorption behavior of amine
(poly(ethyleneimine) (PEI) and tetraethylenepentamine (TEPA)) impregnated
into porous alumina at ambient (25 °C) and cold temperatures (−20 °C) under
dry and humid conditions. CO2 adsorption capacities at 25 °C and 400 ppm
CO2 are highest for 40 wt% TEPA-incorporated γ-Al2O3 samples (1.8 mmol
CO2/g sorbent), while 40 wt % PEI-impregnated γ-Al2O3 samples exhibit
moderate uptakes (0.9 mmol g–1). CO2 capacities for both PEI- and
TEPA-incorporated γ-Al2O3 samples decrease with decreasing amine content
and temperatures. The 40 and 20 wt % TEPA sorbents show the best
performance at −20 °C under dry conditions (1.6 and 1.1 mmol g–1,
respectively). Both the TEPA samples also exhibit stable and high working
capacities (0.9 and 1.2 mmol g–1) across 10 cycles of adsorption–desorption
(adsorption at −20 °C and desorption conducted at 60 °C). Introducing
moisture (70% RH at −20 and 25 °C) improves the CO2 capacity of the
amine-impregnated sorbents at both temperatures. The 40 wt% PEI, 40 wt %
TEPA, and 20 wt% TEPA samples show good CO2 uptakes at both temperatures.
The results presented here indicate that γ-Al2O3 impregnated with PEI and
TEPA are potential materials for DAC at ambient and cold conditions, with
further opportunities to optimize these materials for the scalable
deployment of DAC plants at different environmental conditions.
*Source: ACS Publications*
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages