CDR and coral saving

60 views
Skip to first unread message

Ronal Larson

unread,
Nov 22, 2022, 3:38:28 PM11/22/22
to Carbon Dioxide Removal Group (CarbonDioxideRemoval@googlegroups.com), goreau Thomas
Tom and list:

1.  On a different list today, you gave this cite for a short paper for your thoughts on COP27 - which again neglected coral:



2.  At the end is a cite for a (June 2022) 48 minute video, where you talk about your long history of saving reefs with small electrical supplies.



3.  At about the 11 minute mark, you state that the system is carbon neutral - but can be (more expensive) carbon negative - the subject of this list.  Can you give us more on
achieving carbon negativity - especially how accomplished and how costly?

Ron


Tom Goreau

unread,
Nov 25, 2022, 3:25:03 AM11/25/22
to Ronal Larson, Carbon Dioxide Removal Group (CarbonDioxideRemoval@googlegroups.com)

Thanks for these questions, Ron! We’re working flat out growing high temperature resistant coral reefs in the Maldives, so I have little time to reply.

 

Very briefly, because the ocean is buffered by the carbonate system, and because of the Law of Conservation of Charge, each molecule of ocean bicarbonate converted calcium carbonate is balanced by a molecule that is converted to CO2. That’s why limestone deposition in the ocean is a source of CO2, something almost everyone who has not studied marine chemistry gets backward (and which often passes incompetent “peer review”!).

 

In the case of the Biorock ocean water electrolysis process, the amount of alkalinity produced at one electrode is balanced by acidity produced at the other electrode, so the NET process (the sum of reactions at both electrodes) is CO2 neutral (although kinetics controls the rates at which they are neutralized in the water). The Biorock minerals can be two to three times harder than ordinary Portland Cement (PC), the world’s most widely used building material with steel in reinforced concrete, and source of around 10% of anthropogenic CO2 production. Replacing Portland Cement with Biorock building materials, which can be grown in any size or shape, thus eliminates this major CO2 source, and also eliminates the need for mining sand and rock for concrete aggregate, which is energy intensive and causes tremendous environmental damage. So replacing PC+steel+aggregate with Biorock solid building materials is net carbon negative.

 

Besides producing hard limestone we also produce Brucite (magnesium hydroxide) mineral, and this can be produced in pure form as a fine powder. If left in the ocean it will dissolve and be replaced by calcium carbonate, but we take it out of the water, and expose it to air, where it absorbs atmospheric CO2 directly and is converted to Magnesite (magnesium carbonate), which is even harder than calcium carbonate. We call this electrolytic brucite “Biorock Cement”. Because brucite production removes electrolytically produced hydroxyl ion directly from solution without involving the carbonate chemistry system it is not a significant source of CO2. We also produce green hydrogen and oxygen if electricity from renewable sources is used.

 

Around 25 years ago in Jamaica we made bricks from Biorock Cement, and I plan to grow such material for construction in Zanzibar and other low islands that import PC at ruinous expense to build sea walls that will all fall down:

 

https://www.globalcoral.org/first-known-seawall-collapsed-7000-years-ago-long-term-coastal-ecosystem-regeneration-needed-for-climate-change-adaptation/

 

Biorock therefore allows us to grow building materials directly in the sea to reverse climate change. The cost depends on the price of electricity, but at a solar electricity cost of $ .01 per KWh, the material costs about $10 per ton, less than a tenth of PC. A brief discussion of the process is found in my 2012 review paper which you can download at:

 

https://www.globalcoral.org/marine-electrolysis-for-building-materials-and-environmental-restoration/

 

The whole Biorock Brucite production process has suddenly been “discovered” by a large number of people who don’t cite this paper, making it appear “new”. It isn’t, we’ve been doing it for 45 years.

 

Much more detailed discussion of this was in a longer paper I submitted, withdrew due to uncomprehending peer reviewers, but plan to include in two longer monographs on the entire process.

 

Besides this CO2 sink, the Biorock process greatly accelerates growth of all forms of marine biomass, coral reefs, oyster reefs, seagrass, salt marsh, mangroves, etc., and increases the storage of organic carbon in underlying marine sediments, while turning eroding shorelines and beaches into growing ones, also increasing carbon storage. These applications are covered in two reviews on the structural and biological benefits published this year (2022):

 

https://www.globalcoral.org/electric-reefs-enhance-coral-climate-change-adaptation/

 

https://www.globalcoral.org/coral-reef-electrotherapy-field-observations/

 

These combined Blue Carbon biomass production and marine sediment storage processes will probably prove to be the most cost-effective way to remove the most carbon for geological time scales in the smallest area with the largest ecological benefits by regenerating the coastal fisheries that we have nearly destroyed everywhere, while preventing coastal erosion.

 

For the islands and coral reefs I work in, this is a matter of life and death since the governments of the world have knowingly chosen to sacrifice them.

 

Best wishes from the Maldives,

Tom

Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef Alliance

Chief Scientist, Blue Regeneration SL
President, Biorock Technology Inc.

Technical Advisor, Blue Guardians Programme, SIDS DOCK

37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139

gor...@globalcoral.org
www.globalcoral.org
Skype: tomgoreau
Tel: (1) 617-864-4226 (leave message)

 

Books:

Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase

http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392

 

Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration

http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734

 

No one can change the past, everybody can change the future

 

It’s much later than we think, especially if we don’t think

 

Those with their heads in the sand will see the light when global warming and sea level rise wash the beach away

 

Geotherapy: Regenerating ecosystem services to reverse climate change

 

Bhaskar M V

unread,
Nov 25, 2022, 10:00:47 PM11/25/22
to Carbon Dioxide Removal
Tom

Can you please explain your statement:
".. each molecule of ocean bicarbonate converted calcium carbonate is balanced by a molecule that is converted to CO2. That’s why limestone deposition in the ocean is a source of CO2, "

This only describes one process. 
The other issues are:

1. Where did the Ocean Bicarbonate come from?
I understand that this comes from CO2 that dissolves in the Ocean waters.

2. What happens to the CO2 released during the formation of Calcium Carbonate?
Does this dissolve into water and again form Bicarbonate?
Does this Bicarbonate become Calcium Carbonate?

I guess that the answer to all the above questions are YES.
So in each cycle 50% of the CO2 dissolving in the water is converted into Calcium Carbonate.
So calcium carbonate is NOT a NET source of CO2, each cycle is a source of CO2, 
but once a few cycles, ~ 7, are completed, almost ALL, ~99%, of the CO2 that originally dissolved would have been converted into Calcium Carbonate. 
The equation is 50% + 25% + 12.5% + 6.25% + 3.125 + ...... = 100 %.

Once CO2 dissolves into Oceans, it does NOT exit, if nature is allowed to take its course.
This law can perhaps be called the Law of Natural Sequestration of CO2 in Oceans. 

The total amount of O2 in the atmosphere is 1,200,000 Gt.
Carbon corresponding to this is 450,000 GtC.
Most of this, ~99%, has to be in Oceans and Ocean Bed, it can't be on Land.

Regards

Bhaskar

Tom Goreau

unread,
Nov 26, 2022, 1:40:10 AM11/26/22
to Bhaskar M V, Carbon Dioxide Removal

You can check this in any good marine chemistry or geochemistry textbook, especially H. D. Holland’s books on the evolution of the ocean-atmosphere-rock chemical system, W. S. Broecker & T. H. Peng, R. H. Garrels & F. McKenzie, and F. McKenzie & A. Lerman on the global carbon system.

 

I don’t have these books here in the Maldives where we are growing coral reefs to protect the islands from washing away. So very briefly:

 

Point 1:

 

Atmospheric CO2 in equilibrium with pure water has a pH of 5.66, an acid solution. The acidity is neutralized by weathering rocks.

 

To get basic seawater you need cations to balance the charge of the bicarbonate. You can’t avoid the Law of Charge Balance, it is a physical Law as inviolable as the Law of Gravity. Atmospheric CO2 in equilibrium with limestone sediments in the ocean results in a pH of around 8.1, which is what seawater is. In addition pH is buffered by the ocean silicate system as originally shown by L. G. Sillen, and later by H. D. Holland.

 

Ocean bicarbonate and cations comes from mineral weathering:

 

CO2 (atmosphere) + CaCO3 (rocks on land) + H2O

 

are converted to dissolved calcium and bicarbonate that wash into the ocean via rivers.

 

Or  reaction with silicate rocks, for example Olivine:

 

Mg2SiO4 + CO2 + H2O

 

Converted to dissolved Mg ion and bicarbonate.

 

Similar reactions for sodium, potassium, iron and other silicates.

 

Weathering is the sink of CO2, precipitation of limestone is the source on geological time scales.

 

CO2 released from limestone precipitation goes through the whole carbonate system equilibria between CO2 (atmosphere), CO2 (dissolved), H2CO3, HCO3-, CO3=

 

Point 2:

 

This peculiar fallacy is a carbon version of Zeno’s “paradox” which leads to nonsensical conclusions, such as the claim that Achilles can never outrun a turtle that started before him.

 

Point 3:

 

Almost all the carbon in the crust is limestone and organic carbon in sediments, but only a small fraction of that is in current marine sediments, which are all geologically young, the vast majority is in sedimentary and metamorphic rocks on continents.

--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/5480b079-725c-486a-9cd0-095df50bf75cn%40googlegroups.com.

Brian Cady

unread,
Nov 26, 2022, 8:48:28 AM11/26/22
to Tom Goreau, Bhaskar M V, Carbon Dioxide Removal
Thank you, Tom, for the succinct, informative response. I hadn't heard of Zeno's paradox: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno's_paradoxes

Brian
-

Ronal Larson

unread,
Nov 28, 2022, 1:33:31 AM11/28/22
to Thomas Goreau, Carbon Dioxide Removal Group (CarbonDioxideRemoval@googlegroups.com)
Tom and CDR list:

1.  The question I asked on the 23rd:

"At about the 11 minute mark, you state that the system is carbon neutral - but can be (more expensive) carbon negative - the subject of this list.  Can you give us more on
achieving carbon negativity - especially how accomplished and how costly?"

seems to have the answer below that both your current emphasis on coral reef restoration and prior work on building materials are already carbon negative, not merely carbon neutral.

2.  But I am quite sure you are not actively engaged in pushing either of these two approaches In the CDR world. NOT looking for removal funds to support coral reefs, which is your sole present effort there is(no on-going Goreau work with building materials).   Is this correct?

3.   My new second question is whether it is possible to combine the two activities in any or all locations?   Is there any reason you cannot also produce building materials anywhere you are now concentrating on coral preservation?   One certain answer is lack of funds, but are there others?

4.  And a new third question:  are you open to offers to help fund the combination of reef preservation and building material manufacture?
Am I correct that there would be much greater local employment with building materials - and does this argue for or against the same site (same solar energy source).
I assume coral reef preservation sites could take precedence and maybe the building material process even be on land - simply using the ocean water to flow back by gravity.   And that much more CDR occurs with building materials than coral preservation at any site - of which there are at least millions.  That the two approaches you have been developing are not in conflict at most coral-needy sites?

Ron

Bit more below


On Nov 25, 2022, at 1:24 AM, Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org> wrote:

Thanks for these questions, Ron! We’re working flat out growing high temperature resistant coral reefs in the Maldives, so I have little time to reply.
 
Very briefly, because the ocean is buffered by the carbonate system, and because of the Law of Conservation of Charge, each molecule of ocean bicarbonate converted calcium carbonate is balanced by a molecule that is converted to CO2. That’s why limestone deposition in the ocean is a source of CO2, something almost everyone who has not studied marine chemistry gets backward (and which often passes incompetent “peer review”!).
 
In the case of the Biorock ocean water electrolysis process, the amount of alkalinity produced at one electrode is balanced by acidity produced at the other electrode, so the NET process (the sum of reactions at both electrodes) is CO2 neutral (although kinetics controls the rates at which they are neutralized in the water). The Biorock minerals can be two to three times harder than ordinary Portland Cement (PC), the world’s most widely used building material with steel in reinforced concrete, and source of around 10% of anthropogenic CO2 production. Replacing Portland Cement with Biorock building materials, which can be grown in any size or shape, thus eliminates this major CO2 source, and also eliminates the need for mining sand and rock for concrete aggregate, which is energy intensive and causes tremendous environmental damage. So replacing PC+steel+aggregate with Biorock solid building materials is net carbon negative.
 
Besides producing hard limestone we also produce Brucite (magnesium hydroxide) mineral, and this can be produced in pure form as a fine powder. If left in the ocean it will dissolve and be replaced by calcium carbonate, but we take it out of the water, and expose it to air, where it absorbs atmospheric CO2 directly and is converted to Magnesite (magnesium carbonate), which is even harder than calcium carbonate. We call this electrolytic brucite “Biorock Cement”. Because brucite production removes electrolytically produced hydroxyl ion directly from solution without involving the carbonate chemistry system it is not a significant source of CO2. We also produce green hydrogen and oxygen if electricity from renewable sources is used.
 
Around 25 years ago in Jamaica we made bricks from Biorock Cement, and I plan to grow such material for construction in Zanzibar and other low islands that import PC at ruinous expense to build sea walls that will all fall down:
 
 
Biorock therefore allows us to grow building materials directly in the sea to reverse climate change. The cost depends on the price of electricity, but at a solar electricity cost of $ .01 per KWh, the material costs about $10 per ton, less than a tenth of PC. A brief discussion of the process is found in my 2012 review paper which you can download at:
 
 
The whole Biorock Brucite production process has suddenly been “discovered” by a large number of people who don’t cite this paper, making it appear “new”. It isn’t, we’ve been doing it for 45 years.
 
Much more detailed discussion of this was in a longer paper I submitted, withdrew due to uncomprehending peer reviewers, but plan to include in two longer monographs on the entire process. 
 
Besides this CO2 sink, the Biorock process greatly accelerates growth of all forms of marine biomass, coral reefs, oyster reefs, seagrass, salt marsh, mangroves, etc., and increases the storage of organic carbon in underlying marine sediments, while turning eroding shorelines and beaches into growing ones, also increasing carbon storage. These applications are covered in two reviews on the structural and biological benefits published this year (2022):
 
 

 RWL:   these articles are very similar.  I liked these comments (I think in the correct order)

Despite overwhelming field evidence for its benefits, no studies of the biophysics and biochemistry of the process have yet been done. 

 "The electricity needed to grow back a hundred meters of severely eroded beach in front of a hotel might be one or two air conditioner’s worth of electricity, a small amount compared to the benefits of a beach, with a living coral reef and healthy fisheries, and could save the hotel itself from hurricanes and sea level rise, and fishing villages from starving.

And your following two closing paragraphs are very strong arguments for CDR (I have not commented on sediments, which requires more work on my part).  And for more than CDR.  And your "cost-effective” now needs more detail in the CDR world - because of a requirement for additionality.)

Ron

-- 
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.

Brian Cady

unread,
Nov 28, 2022, 6:39:23 AM11/28/22
to Ronal Larson, Thomas Goreau, Carbon Dioxide Removal Group (CarbonDioxideRemoval@googlegroups.com)
Hi folks,

Just wanted to mention William E. Heronemus, who proposed an offshore windfarm of wind generators splitting water and piping the hydrogen to shore: https://www.umass.edu/windenergy/about/history/heronemus & https://umass.engineering/historical-collections/homage-heronemus-impact-umass-wind-energy/.
I believe Heronemus saw piping hydrogen to shore as more workable than wiring electricity to shore.
Such a system could integrate with brucite production, for production of magnesium alloy production(for windmills or batteries), and magnesia-based cement production.
Thomas Goreau, I think you're on a promising path.

Brian
-

Andrew Lockley

unread,
Nov 28, 2022, 8:18:46 AM11/28/22
to Brian Cady, Carbon Dioxide Removal Group (CarbonDioxideRemoval@googlegroups.com)
If it's worth piping the H2, why not the O2? That's useful for oxyfuel combustion in eg cement kilns 

Tom Goreau

unread,
Dec 5, 2022, 7:08:00 AM12/5/22
to Ronal Larson, Carbon Dioxide Removal Group (CarbonDioxideRemoval@googlegroups.com)

Thanks for these important questions, and sorry for the late response, have been working flat out growing high temperature and sea level rise resilient coral reefs in the Maldives.

 

The Biorock seawater electrolysis process was originally invented by architect Wolf Hilbertz to grow building material in the sea. When he began working with me in the 1980s we focused on the biological benefits of saving coral reef ecosystems (the first ecosystem to pass its global warming tipping point, in the mid 1980s), but we continued to work on materials applications to produce cheaper, harder, carbon negative building materials in the sea. This technology will also prove to be a cost effective way to regenerate coastal reef, mangrove, seagrass ecosystems and fisheries that grow to match sea level rise and store blue carbon, at the lowest cost in the smallest area with the largest ecosystem services and highest biodiversity. At the same time, using renewable solar or ocean energy, we also generate renewable hydrogen, oxygen, and chlorine.

 

For decades I’ve refused repeated requests to claim Biorock is CO2-negative as a matter of principle, because we reject greenwashing carbon credits that are a fig leaf for continuing fossil fuel CO2 releases. Enhanced carbon sinks should never be used to “offset” CO2 sources as bogus so-called “negative emissions”, an oxymoronic neologism that should be extirpated from the literature and our lips.

 

We can indeed “build in the sea to reverse climate change”, as we plan to do so this month with students in Zanzibar.

Dennis Amoroso

unread,
Dec 5, 2022, 7:17:45 AM12/5/22
to Tom Goreau, Ronal Larson, Carbon Dioxide Removal Group (CarbonDioxideRemoval@googlegroups.com)
Good Morning All
     On Friday of last week we received a report from one of our large farming customers who use our rock powder based fertilizer for the past 2 years.  They stated that they saved 20% of their water consumption by using our fertilizer.  In the state of California this means that we can save hundreds of billions of gallons of water every year as more farmers begin to replace their chemical fertilizer with our non chemical fertilizer.  
The greenhouse gas reduction is also highly significant.  
Dennis Amoroso President 
Plant Nutrition Technologies Inc 
On Dec 5, 2022, at 4:07 AM, Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org> wrote:


Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages