March temperature smashes 100-year global record

[Greg Rau]

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/15/march-temperature-smashes-100-year-global-record

"The UK Met Office expects 2016 to set a new record, meaning the global temperature record is set to have been broken for three years in a row.

Prof Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Penn State University in the US, responded to the March data by saying: “Wow. I continue to be shocked by what we are seeing.” He said the world had now been hovering close to the threshold of “dangerous” warming for two months, something not seen before.

“The [new data] is a reminder of how perilously close we now are to permanently crossing into dangerous territory,” Mann said. “It underscores the urgency of reducing global carbon emissions.”

GR - and the need to seriously consider additional ways of managing CO2 and climate.

[John Nissen]

Dear Professor Mann, 

Most of us would like to keep global warming below 1.5C this century.  But we are way off course.

Nobody likes to admit in public that we are already in dangerous territory.  But we are!

The rate of global warming (near-surface temperature rise) could now exceed 0.2 C per decade; CO2 is above 400 ppm (an excess of 120 ppm above pre-industrial 280 ppm) of which most will remain this century due to CO2's long lifetime in the atmosphere; and we have already had over 1 C anthropogenic global warming (AGW).  This means that, even with the most drastic cut in CO2 emissions, we cannot avoid an extremely dangerous 3C this century without aggressive CO2 removal (CDR).  Indeed, if we want to keep AGW below 1.5 C this century and halt ocean acidification, then we need to get global warming rate down below 0.05 C per decade, i.e. less than a quarter the current rate.  

Thus climate forcing has to be reduced by 75% within a decade or two, to have a chance to keep below 1.5 C this century.

Thus we have to reduce the CO2 level to around 210 ppm (30 ppm above pre-industrial 280 ppm), and reduce methane from 1.8 ppm to around 1.0 ppm in order to reduce their combined forcing by 75%.  This assumes we maintain aerosol cooling, especially the SO2 cooling from coal-fired power stations.   

This is exacerbated by climate forcing from the Arctic, at around 0.5 W/m2 and rising exponentially as albedo loss accelerates.

Therefore, in addition to urgent CO2 emissions reduction, we need (i) aggressive CDR so that CO2 is soon being removed from the atmosphere faster than than it is being emitted, (ii) suppression of methane emissions, especially fugitive methane (iii) rapid cooling of the Arctic to restore albedo, and (iv) maintenance of SO2 aerosol cooling, if global warming is to be kept below 1.5 C this century.  

Do you agree or can you suggest an alternative course of action to avert extreme danger?

Kind regards,

John Nissen

Chair, Arctic Methane Emergency Group (AMEG)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[NORTHCOTT Michael]

Hi John

The course of action to slow the rate of warming (it is 0.1 degree per decade not 0.2) and ultimately to stop it requires all of the following. Young people and climate activists the world over are calling for these things and campaigning actively and at cost of their freedom sometimes to bring them about:

1. Ending tropical forest burning

2. Stopping building of new coal and oil fired power stations (Turkey and India and S Africa are planning 100s) and ending coal extraction by China, Indonesia, and even Australia, Germany US and UK who have no conceivable need to continue extracting the stuff given the wealth already at the disposal of their citizens and corporations 

3. Closing existing coal and oil fired electric power plants

4. Reforesting uplands, reducing sheep grazing, and increasing uptake of co2 in agric land with biochar, compost etc

5. Ending expansion of air sea and road travel and moving all road and sea travel to electric vehicles and wind. Rationing air travel to gradually shift international and national travellers to other means. 

6. Moving all electricity production to renewable power and battery / reservoir storage of back up power. 

7. Reengineering older buildings with insulation. 

8. Requiring all new builds to generate own power and be zero carbon

9. Reducing shipping and flying of food by favouring local over global food production.

10. Ending large scale animal husbandry and moving mainstream human protein requirements to beans, vegetables etc. 

11. Favour pedestrians, cyclists and electric bikes, segways, electric wheelchairs etc in all city planning and movement infrastructure 

Globally these measures would generate at least a billion of jobs, reduce deaths from pollution, and reduce health costs of cancers, heart disease, obesity and air pollution, and reduce concentrations of wealth by putting capacity to generate power, grow food and move around back in the hands of householders and local communities. None of them require large scale totalitarian and public debt-based technologies of the kind represented by CDR. 

We need moral alternatives to the present madness. We need to argue for them in every possible forum and embrace them ourselves. Arming the future against the sun is a counsel of despair. 

Regards

Michael

Professor of Ethics

University of Edinburgh 

[Greg Rau]

Dear Michael,

Yes, we need "moral alternatives to the present madness", but just in case all of those suggested aren't adopted in the next few decades it would seem immoral not to at least hope for additional options just in case 1-11 don't pan out in time.  As for crossing the the "large scale", "totalitarian" and "public debt"  thresholds, something tells me that it's going to take some very large scale, draconian implementation to execute 1-11 in the dwindling time remaining, and many of these activities will require capital and investment from somewhere. 

Meanwhile, natural CDR seems to be doing a good job consuming more than half of our CO2 emissions and actually reversing the air CO2 rise for a period each year*.  So given this positive example and the task we face, how immoral might it be to see if there are safe and cost effectively ways to increase or add to this natural CO2 uptake process just in case our journey on more virtuous paths to a stable planet proves to take longer than demanded by the recently lowered and oh so moral 1.5 Deg C warming limit?

*https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_two_years.pdf

Regards,

Greg

---

From: NORTHCOTT Michael <M.Nor...@ed.ac.uk>
To: "johnnis...@gmail.com" <johnnis...@gmail.com>
Cc: "ma...@psu.edu" <ma...@psu.edu>; "geoengi...@googlegroups.com" <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net>; James Hansen <jimeh...@gmail.com>; P. Wadhams <pw...@cam.ac.uk>; John Topping <jtopp...@yahoo.com>; Robert Corell <robert...@getf.org>; Peter R Carter <peterc...@shaw.ca>
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: [geo] March temperature smashes 100-year global record

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

[Stephen Salter]

Hi All

One more possible option would be to use hydrogen for aircraft fuel.  It has a great weight advantage but also a severe volume disadvantage.  This could be partly overcome if we remove the landing gear and have planes landing on ground vehicles.The landing gear on an Airbus 380 weighs the same as 200 passengers and their luggage.

A note with sketches is attached. 

Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk, Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704, Cell 07795 203 195, WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change

[Greg Rau]

Thanks, Stephen, that's a wonderful segway for our negative emissions H2:

http://www.pnas.org/content/110/25/10095.full

http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b00875

Happy to provide all of the supergreen H2 you need (for a price).

As for H2 aircraft and the landing problem, how about zeppelins? I know that Hindenberg incident over here last century didn't help this technology (the Led Zepplin album cover (not to mention what as inside) influenced an entire generation), but why not put H2 to use both for lift and for propulsion? Zepplins would also seem to satisfy Prof. Northcott's desire for more civilized travel (his Action Item 11 below).

Then there is Plan C - rockets. Rockets can use H2 as fuel, and Mr. Musk has now demonstrated the soft vertical landing of such.  Was that landing on a rolling barge in the open ocean the most amazing engineering feat ever, or is it just me? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8Ij4FwO0nI  

Regards,

Greg

---

From: Stephen Salter <S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk>
To: geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 2:23 AM

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

[skon...@yahoo.fr]

Hi All,

It seems like we are reaching a tipping point; solutions that could alleviate quickly the direct consequences of that high temperature are expecting.

Dr Salif Koné,

Malian National School of Engineers

Sent from my iPhone

[Ronal W. Larson]

Greg,  Stephen, list

1.  Re Stephen’s idea:  Sounds like an idea where the next step will have to be by the US air force (or someone’s military).  Starting with 200 passenger designs wouldn’t seem to go very far.

2.  I have nothing against H2 for lighter than air craft - but Helium should be considered as well.  I believe we are still venting a lot.

3.  To get back onto the CDR aspects of this list (and costs lower than $100/tonne CO2) - there are companies talking co-products of biochar and jet fuel.  Not happening now (I gather) because oil is $40/barrel - not the anticipated $100/bbl.

4.  Is anyone talking about low cost CDR starting with either solar, wind, hydro, geothermal or other RE electric?  Seems to me it has to be biochar.

Ron

[Greg Rau]

Ron,

As for your point 4, the C negative H2 I'm talking about is powered by renewable electricity (or nuclear). 

The basic idea is: H2O + base minerals + CO2 + renewable Vdc ---> H2 +  O2 + dissolved mineral bicarbonates (+ SiO2 if present).

e.g. silicates - 

4CO2g + 4H2O + Mg2SiO4s + Vdc ----> 2H2g +  O2g + Mg2+ + 4HCO3- + SiO2s

e.g. carbonates:

CO2g + 2H2O + CaCO3s + Vdc ---->H2g +  1/2O2g + Ca2+ + 2HCO3- 

See the links I listed earlier.

Furthermore, the energy cost of adding this CDR to electrolytic H2 production is theoretically near zero because bicarbonation of minerals is exothermic.  CO2 consumed per H2 generated ranges from 22 to 44 (tonnes/tonne).

G

---

From: Ronal W. Larson <rongre...@comcast.net>
To: RAU greg <gh...@sbcglobal.net>
Cc: Stephen Salter <s.sa...@ed.ac.uk>; Geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 3:21 PM

[Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf)]

And if you use olivine, it is not so much the reaction that is mentioned, but it is the hydrogen that forms by the reaction with the fayalite (iron end member of olivine)) that produces the hydrogen according to

 

6 Fe2SiO4  + 16 H2O  à 4 Fe3O4 + 4 H2 + 6 H4SiO4

 

This reaction happens also in nature, and I have burnt some hydrogen bubbles that rose from a pool of water in (the biggest) olivine massif of the world in Oman, Olaf Schuiling

[Ronal W. Larson]

Greg and list

 My emphasis was intended to be on the words “low cost”.  Your papers have talked about $100/tonne CO2.  Biochar is growing quite rapidly with no present subsidies - mostly because of paybacks (even in year 1) in reduced irrigation and fertilization costs and increased productivity.  Only a few receiving financial benefits from voluntary CDR payments today.

Ron

[NORTHCOTT Michael]

Hi Renaud

Currently there is just one working industrial scale co2 removal facility on the planet attached to a coal fired power station at Boundary Dam in Saskatchewan. It cost 1.5 billion Canadian dollars to build and the cost per tonne of CO2 removal is $100. UK, US, China have no plans to build industrial scale CCS. It is not utopian to stop building coal fired power stations. These kill people and there are alternative power sources available especially for hot countries such as India and Turkey. Extracting coal, building new coal power stations and then expecting US or UK to build plants to draw the co2 back down - that is a far more costly approach than finding ways to incentivise developing countries not to build coal fired power in the first place. 

We need pragmatism not Utopianism. That is what the keep it in the ground movement is. Sadly the UNFCCC refuses even to discuss fossil fuels at the CoP meetings. There is no mention of fossil fuels in the 'Paris agreement'. But CDR is an unhelpful distraction from this political failure to grasp the nettle. 

Best wishes

Michael

On 20 Apr 2016, at 21:18, Renaud de RICHTER <renaud.d...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Professor Michale NORTHCOTT,

I agree with you, all this is needed but as points 2. and 3. are for the moment utopian, maybe original mitigation strategies can also be added to your list. Like non-CO2 GHG removal directly from the atmosphere, as proposed in http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1750583616300858 and in http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-016-6103-9.

Best regards

Renaud de_Richter

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/geoengineering/c7_tf9XZiM4/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.

[Greg Rau]

I assumed that we are talking about negative emissions energy production.  Unclear how biochar fits in here, unless someone has figured out: biomass ---> biochar + energy (essential burning the hydrogen rather than the carbon). If $100/tonne CO2 is a showstopper for negative emissions energy, then  why is $100/tonne CCS as applied to BE the darling of this field? The energy penalty for CCS is on the order of 30% of convention energy production. (Can we really afford to increase land,water, nutrient use by 30% over standard BE to accommodate CCS?) The energy penalty for adding C-negatvity to electrolytic H2 production may be <5% and does not require BE or land use (OK some mining required).

Greg

 

---

From: Ronal W. Larson <rongre...@comcast.net>

To: RAU greg <gh...@sbcglobal.net>; Geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 7:55 AM

[M.Hori]

I tried to construct a Carbon Negative Energy System, which enables the
CDR and energy supply integrally, by full use of available ‘clean’
(non-carbon emitting) energy sources – renewable (biomass, solar, wind,
hydro, etc.) and nuclear energies. The executive summary of this report
was distributed to this list October last year, and the copy can be
downloaded from below;

"CARBON-NEGATIVE ENERGY SYSTEM -- Sustainable World Energy Supply and
Global Environment Restoration Using Renewable and Nuclear Energies" (2015)
http://www.ne.jp/asahi/mh/u/HoriCNES_ES.pdf

The concept is as follows;

C: Carbon in biomass, typically C6H10O5

By the carbonization of biomass;

C (biomass) -> C (biochar) + C (volatile)

C (biochar) is up to a half of C (biomass) in usual carbonization
process, and this biochar acts as the CDR.

By the steam gasification process of the remaining C (volatile) ;

C (volatile) + H2O -> CO + H2

This [CO + H2] (Syngas or synthesis gas) is used as important industrial
resources (for process and energy).

Syngas can also be used to produce hydrocarbons (CH2 in constituent
ratio) such as diesel oil, which could replace petroleum products for
transportation and other fields as ‘clean’ fuels.

A typical process is the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis as follows;

CO + 2H2 -> CH2 + H2O

In the above processes, the steam gasification process is a strong
endothermic reaction which needs large heat (131 kJ/mol). This heat can
be supplied from biomass itself by combusting part of it, but if the
heat is supplied by nuclear energy, the effective carbon removal amount
(by both biochar and biofuel) can be increased about 60% compared to
biomass-only process when processing the same amount of biomass.

It would be crucial to increase the ratio of CDR amount to the processed
biomass amount when the available global biomass resources are limited,
and this biomass-nuclear synergistic process will be useful for such
circumstances.

By the way, as the heat supplied to the endothermic reaction will be
contained in the heat of combustion of products, the nuclear heat is
effectively converted to a part of the heat of fuel, deducting heat loss
during the processes.

A quantitative image of global carbon/energy balance in Year2065 by this
Carbon Negative Energy System is shown in the attached figure.


Masao Hori
Nuclear Systems Association, Japan
Tel: (81) 90-9683-1132
Email: mh...@mxb.mesh.ne.jp
----------------------------

Greg Rau wrote on 2016/04/21 10:27:

> I assumed that we are talking about negative emissions energy
> production. Unclear how biochar fits in here, unless someone has
> figured out: biomass ---> biochar + energy (essential burning the
> hydrogen rather than the carbon). If $100/tonne CO2 is a showstopper for
> negative emissions energy, then why is $100/tonne CCS as applied to BE
> the darling of this field? The energy penalty for CCS is on the order of
> 30% of convention energy production. (Can we really afford to increase
> land,water, nutrient use by 30% over standard BE to accommodate CCS?)
> The energy penalty for adding C-negatvity to electrolytic H2 production
> may be <5% and does not require BE or land use (OK some mining required).
> Greg
>
>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Ronal W. Larson <rongre...@comcast.net>
> *To:* RAU greg <gh...@sbcglobal.net>; Geoengineering
> <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, April 20, 2016 7:55 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] March temperature smashes 100-year global record

>
> Greg and list
>
> My emphasis was intended to be on the words “low cost”. Your
> papers have talked about $100/tonne CO2. Biochar is growing quite
> rapidly with no present subsidies - mostly because of paybacks (even
> in year 1) in reduced irrigation and fertilization costs and
> increased productivity. Only a few receiving financial benefits
> from voluntary CDR payments today.
>
> Ron
>
>
>> On Apr 19, 2016, at 5:06 PM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net

>> <mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net>> wrote:
>>
>> Ron,
>> As for your point 4, the C negative H2 I'm talking about is
>> powered by renewable electricity (or nuclear).
>> The basic idea is: H2O + base minerals + CO2 + renewable Vdc --->
>> H2 + O2 + dissolved mineral bicarbonates (+ SiO2 if present).
>> e.g. silicates -
>> 4CO2g + 4H2O + Mg2SiO4s + Vdc ----> 2H2g + O2g + Mg2+ + 4HCO3- +
>> SiO2s
>> e.g. carbonates:
>> CO2g + 2H2O + CaCO3s + Vdc ---->H2g + 1/2O2g + Ca2+ + 2HCO3-
>> See the links I listed earlier.
>> Furthermore, the energy cost of adding this CDR to electrolytic H2
>> production is theoretically near zero because bicarbonation of
>> minerals is exothermic. CO2 consumed per H2 generated ranges from
>> 22 to 44 (tonnes/tonne).
>> G
>>
>>

>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* Ronal W. Larson <rongre...@comcast.net
>> <mailto:rongre...@comcast.net>>
>> *To:* RAU greg <gh...@sbcglobal.net <mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net>>
>> *Cc:* Stephen Salter <s.sa...@ed.ac.uk
>> <mailto:s.sa...@ed.ac.uk>>; Geoengineering
>> <geoengi...@googlegroups.com
>> <mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com>>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 19, 2016 3:21 PM
>> *Subject:* Re: [geo] March temperature smashes 100-year global

>> record
>>
>> Greg, Stephen, list
>>
>> 1. Re Stephen’s idea: Sounds like an idea where the next
>> step will have to be by the US air force (or someone’s
>> military). Starting with 200 passenger designs wouldn’t seem
>> to go very far.
>>
>> 2. I have nothing against H2 for lighter than air craft - but
>> Helium should be considered as well. I believe we are still
>> venting a lot.
>>
>> 3. To get back onto the CDR aspects of this list (and costs
>> lower than $100/tonne CO2) - there are companies talking
>> co-products of biochar and jet fuel. Not happening now (I
>> gather) because oil is $40/barrel - not the anticipated $100/bbl.
>>
>> 4. Is anyone talking about low cost CDR starting with either
>> solar, wind, hydro, geothermal or other RE electric? Seems to
>> me it has to be biochar.
>>
>> Ron
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Apr 18, 2016, at 11:40 AM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net

>>> <mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks, Stephen, that's a wonderful segway for our negative
>>> emissions H2:
>>> http://www.pnas.org/content/110/25/10095.full
>>> http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b00875
>>> Happy to provide all of the supergreen H2 you need (for a price).
>>>
>>> As for H2 aircraft and the landing problem, how about
>>> zeppelins? I know that Hindenberg incident over here last
>>> century didn't help this technology (the Led Zepplin album
>>> cover (not to mention what as inside) influenced an entire
>>> generation), but why not put H2 to use both for lift and for
>>> propulsion? Zepplins would also seem to satisfy Prof.
>>> Northcott's desire for more civilized travel (his Action Item
>>> 11 below).
>>>
>>> Then there is Plan C - rockets. Rockets can use H2 as fuel,
>>> and Mr. Musk has now demonstrated the soft vertical landing
>>> of such. Was that landing on a rolling barge in the open
>>> ocean the most amazing engineering feat ever, or is it just
>>> me? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8Ij4FwO0nI
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Greg
>>>
>>>

>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *From:* Stephen Salter <S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk
>>> <mailto:S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk>>
>>> *To:* geoengi...@googlegroups.com
>>> <mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
>>> *Sent:* Monday, April 18, 2016 2:23 AM
>>> *Subject:* Re: [geo] March temperature smashes 100-year

>>> global record
>>>
>>> Hi All
>>> One more possible option would be to use hydrogen for
>>> aircraft fuel. It has a great weight advantage but also
>>> a severe volume disadvantage. This could be partly
>>> overcome if we remove the landing gear and have planes
>>> landing on ground vehicles.The landing gear on an Airbus
>>> 380 weighs the same as 200 passengers and their luggage.
>>> A note with sketches is attached.
>>> Stephen
>>> Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of
>>> Engineering, University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road,
>>> Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk

>>> <mailto:S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk>, Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704, Cell
>>> 07795 203 195, WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs
>>> <http://www.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs>, YouTube Jamie Taylor

>>> Power for Change
>>> On 18/04/2016 06:38, Greg Rau wrote:
>>>> Dear Michael,
>>>> Yes, we need "moral alternatives to the present
>>>> madness", but just in case all of those suggested aren't
>>>> adopted in the next few decades it would seem immoral
>>>> not to at least hope for additional options just in case
>>>> 1-11 don't pan out in time. As for crossing the the
>>>> "large scale", "totalitarian" and "public debt"
>>>> thresholds, something tells me that it's going to take
>>>> some very large scale, draconian implementation to
>>>> execute 1-11 in the dwindling time remaining, and many
>>>> of these activities will require capital and investment
>>>> from somewhere.
>>>> Meanwhile, natural CDR seems to be doing a good job
>>>> consuming more than half of our CO2 emissions and
>>>> actually reversing the air CO2 rise for a period each
>>>> year*. So given this positive example and the task we
>>>> face, how immoral might it be to see if there are safe
>>>> and cost effectively ways to increase or add to this
>>>> natural CO2 uptake process just in case our journey on
>>>> more virtuous paths to a stable planet proves to take
>>>> longer than demanded by the recently lowered and oh so
>>>> moral 1.5 Deg C warming limit?
>>>>

>>>> *<https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_two_years.pdf>https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_two_years.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Greg
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> *From:* NORTHCOTT Michael <M.Nor...@ed.ac.uk>
>>>> <mailto:M.Nor...@ed.ac.uk>
>>>> *To:* "johnnis...@gmail.com"
>>>> <mailto:johnnis...@gmail.com>
>>>> <johnnis...@gmail.com>
>>>> <mailto:johnnis...@gmail.com>
>>>> *Cc:* "ma...@psu.edu" <mailto:ma...@psu.edu>
>>>> <ma...@psu.edu> <mailto:ma...@psu.edu>;
>>>> "geoengi...@googlegroups.com"
>>>> <mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
>>>> <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
>>>> <mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; Greg Rau
>>>> <gh...@sbcglobal.net> <mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net>;
>>>> James Hansen <jimeh...@gmail.com>
>>>> <mailto:jimeh...@gmail.com>; P. Wadhams
>>>> <pw...@cam.ac.uk> <mailto:pw...@cam.ac.uk>; John
>>>> Topping <jtopp...@yahoo.com>
>>>> <mailto:jtopp...@yahoo.com>; Robert Corell
>>>> <robert...@getf.org>
>>>> <mailto:robert...@getf.org>; Peter R Carter
>>>> <peterc...@shaw.ca> <mailto:peterc...@shaw.ca>
>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, April 17, 2016 12:25 PM
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [geo] March temperature smashes

>>>> <<mailto:johnnis...@gmail.com>johnnis...@gmail.com

>>>>> <gh...@sbcglobal.net <mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> <http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/15/march-temperature-smashes-100-year-global-record>http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/15/march-temperature-smashes-100-year-global-record

>>>>>>
>>>>> "The UK Met Office expects 2016 to set a new
>>>>> record

>>>>> <http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/17/2016-set-to-be-hottest-year-on-record-globally>,

[Michael Hayes]

Dr. Hori et al.,

I found your work to be the most articulate view of the potential for a global scale C-neg regimen using the BECCS concept. I would like to ask your permission to reference your paper within a C-neg marine based infrastructure/investment concept which I'm currently working on. In brief, it is my view that using the many forms of marine based renewable energy for the production/processing/refinement of marine biomass, as opposed to land based energy (and other land resources), may offer the easiest path to truly large scale C-neg infrastructure investment. Further, the deployment of such large scale marine based C-neg infrastructure can also help address other pressing global issues, beyond the need for biofuels and biochar, inter alia the production of food, feed, organic fertilizer, polymers, pharma, and even the production of freshwater. This list is not exhaustive.

The list of potential marine biomass based downstream products is extensive and growing as new marine biomass based inventions and science emerge. Thus, based upon currently available technology and scientific knowledge, large scale investments may potentially be attracted to a marine based C-neg regime sooner than vast scale land based BECCS options. Once large scale marine BECCS production and a reasonable investment return are both proven out, large scale investments in land based nuclear energy based BECCS may become much easier to secure.

There may be another technical option. China is currently committed to the development of and deployment of a rather large fleet of marine based nuclear plants. Coupling such marine based power infrastructure with marine BECCS would make many of the drawbacks currently found within the land based BECCS concept simply moot. Importantly, the addition of the profits generated by the many potential downstream marine based products, beyond biofuel and biochar, can help ensure a reasonable return on the overall investments. We have to face the fact that both biofuel and biochar are low margin products and both product streams need the benefits from additional profit streams.

To conclude, your work on the nuclear powered BECCS option should be considered as being central within the overall BECCS discussion due to its articulation, scope, and comprehensiveness. Expanding the work to include the marine space, and the vast resources which our great seas and even the high seas offer all of us, may also be worth accepting as a central idea as you point out in your paper "The task of removing CO 2 and supplying fuel is a gigantic international public-works project, and it would evolve into creating new big environment/energy businesses.". If this effort is to reach the needed scale, it will require relatively secure and prosperous investment options at both the initial stage of deployment as well as for generations to come. I believe marine based BECCS has the potential for early stage success which can pave the way for a long-term (generational) mix of BECCS options...including the nuclear. 


Best regards,

Michael

[M.Hori]

Dear Dr. Hayes

Thank you very much for your comment. It is very encouraging.

1. I would welcome you or anyone to reference my paper to your marine
based infrastructure/investment project or any other projects for global
environment restoration and sustainable world energy supply.

2. I am interested in your marine biomass BECCS concept, reading its
features you wrote. Some marine biomass (algae) grow faster than
terrestrial plants, so I think that marine BECCS process may better be
centralized with easier assembling of biomass.

3. I think that the global CDR task and the world energy supply task are
both indispensable in the coming decades, and that the both tasks will
be accomplished most effectively and efficiently by an integrated
approach. The Carbon-Negative Energy System is a reference concept in
this direction. I hope it will be upgraded, updated, revised and
combined with other processes for our global tasks.

Best regards,

Masao Hori
mh...@mxb.mesh.ne.jp
-------------------------------------

> within the land based BECCS concept /simply moot/. Importantly, the

> addition of the profits generated by the many potential downstream
> marine based products, beyond biofuel and biochar, can help ensure a
> reasonable return on the overall investments. We have to face the fact
> that both biofuel and biochar are low margin products and both product
> streams need the benefits from additional profit streams.
>
> To conclude, your work on the nuclear powered BECCS option should be
> considered as being central within the overall BECCS discussion due to
> its articulation, scope, and comprehensiveness. Expanding the work to
> include the marine space, and the vast resources which our great seas
> and even the high seas offer all of us, may also be worth accepting as a

> central idea as you point out in your paper /**/"The task of removing CO

> 2 and supplying fuel is a gigantic international public-works project,

> andit would evolve into creating new big environment/energy

> Email: mh...@mxb.mesh.ne.jp <javascript:>

> ----------------------------
>
> Greg Rau wrote on 2016/04/21 10:27:
>
> > I assumed that we are talking about negative emissions energy
> > production. Unclear how biochar fits in here, unless someone has
> > figured out: biomass ---> biochar + energy (essential burning the
> > hydrogen rather than the carbon). If $100/tonne CO2 is a
> showstopper for
> > negative emissions energy, then why is $100/tonne CCS as applied
> to BE
> > the darling of this field? The energy penalty for CCS is on the
> order of
> > 30% of convention energy production. (Can we really afford to
> increase
> > land,water, nutrient use by 30% over standard BE to accommodate CCS?)
> > The energy penalty for adding C-negatvity to electrolytic H2
> production
> > may be <5% and does not require BE or land use (OK some mining
> required).
> > Greg
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

> > *From:* Ronal W. Larson <rongre...@comcast.net <javascript:>>
> > *To:* RAU greg <gh...@sbcglobal.net <javascript:>>;
> Geoengineering
> > <geoengi...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>>

> > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 20, 2016 7:55 AM
> > *Subject:* Re: [geo] March temperature smashes 100-year global
> record
> >
> > Greg and list
> >
> > My emphasis was intended to be on the words “low cost”. Your
> > papers have talked about $100/tonne CO2. Biochar is growing
> quite
> > rapidly with no present subsidies - mostly because of paybacks
> (even
> > in year 1) in reduced irrigation and fertilization costs and
> > increased productivity. Only a few receiving financial benefits
> > from voluntary CDR payments today.
> >
> > Ron
> >
> >
> >> On Apr 19, 2016, at 5:06 PM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net

> <javascript:>

> >> <mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net <javascript:>>> wrote:
> >>
> >> Ron,
> >> As for your point 4, the C negative H2 I'm talking about is
> >> powered by renewable electricity (or nuclear).
> >> The basic idea is: H2O + base minerals + CO2 + renewable Vdc
> --->
> >> H2 + O2 + dissolved mineral bicarbonates (+ SiO2 if present).
> >> e.g. silicates -
> >> 4CO2g + 4H2O + Mg2SiO4s + Vdc ----> 2H2g + O2g + Mg2+ +
> 4HCO3- +
> >> SiO2s
> >> e.g. carbonates:
> >> CO2g + 2H2O + CaCO3s + Vdc ---->H2g + 1/2O2g + Ca2+ + 2HCO3-
> >> See the links I listed earlier.
> >> Furthermore, the energy cost of adding this CDR to
> electrolytic H2
> >> production is theoretically near zero because bicarbonation of
> >> minerals is exothermic. CO2 consumed per H2 generated ranges
> from
> >> 22 to 44 (tonnes/tonne).
> >> G
> >>
> >>
> >>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

> >> *From:* Ronal W. Larson <rongre...@comcast.net <javascript:>
> >> <mailto:rongre...@comcast.net <javascript:>>>
> >> *To:* RAU greg <gh...@sbcglobal.net <javascript:>
> <mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net <javascript:>>>
> >> *Cc:* Stephen Salter <s.sa...@ed.ac.uk <javascript:>
> >> <mailto:s.sa...@ed.ac.uk <javascript:>>>; Geoengineering
> >> <geoengi...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>
> >> <mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>>>

> <gh...@sbcglobal.net <javascript:>

> >>> <mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net <javascript:>>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Thanks, Stephen, that's a wonderful segway for our negative
> >>> emissions H2:
> >>> http://www.pnas.org/content/110/25/10095.full

> <http://www.pnas.org/content/110/25/10095.full>
> >>> http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b00875

> <http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b00875>
> >>> Happy to provide all of the supergreen H2 you need (for
> a price).
> >>>
> >>> As for H2 aircraft and the landing problem, how about
> >>> zeppelins? I know that Hindenberg incident over here last
> >>> century didn't help this technology (the Led Zepplin album
> >>> cover (not to mention what as inside) influenced an entire
> >>> generation), but why not put H2 to use both for lift and
> for
> >>> propulsion? Zepplins would also seem to satisfy Prof.
> >>> Northcott's desire for more civilized travel (his Action
> Item
> >>> 11 below).
> >>>
> >>> Then there is Plan C - rockets. Rockets can use H2 as fuel,
> >>> and Mr. Musk has now demonstrated the soft vertical landing
> >>> of such. Was that landing on a rolling barge in the open
> >>> ocean the most amazing engineering feat ever, or is it just
> >>> me? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8Ij4FwO0nI
> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8Ij4FwO0nI>
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>> Greg
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

> >>> *From:* Stephen Salter <S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk <javascript:>
> >>> <mailto:S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk <javascript:>>>
> >>> *To:* geoengi...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>
> >>> <mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>>

> >>> *Sent:* Monday, April 18, 2016 2:23 AM
> >>> *Subject:* Re: [geo] March temperature smashes 100-year
> >>> global record
> >>>
> >>> Hi All
> >>> One more possible option would be to use hydrogen for
> >>> aircraft fuel. It has a great weight advantage but
> also
> >>> a severe volume disadvantage. This could be partly
> >>> overcome if we remove the landing gear and have planes
> >>> landing on ground vehicles.The landing gear on an
> Airbus
> >>> 380 weighs the same as 200 passengers and their
> luggage.
> >>> A note with sketches is attached.
> >>> Stephen
> >>> Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of
> >>> Engineering, University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road,
> >>> Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk

> <javascript:>
> >>> <mailto:S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk <javascript:>>, Tel +44

> (0)131 650 5704, Cell
> >>> 07795 203 195, WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs

> <http://WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs>
> >>> <http://www.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs

> <https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_two_years.pdf>>https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_two_years.pdf

> <https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/wp-content/plugins/sio-bluemoon/graphs/mlo_two_years.pdf>
>
> >>>>
> >>>> Regards,
> >>>> Greg
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >>>> *From:* NORTHCOTT Michael <M.Nor...@ed.ac.uk

> <javascript:>>
> >>>> <mailto:M.Nor...@ed.ac.uk <javascript:>>
> >>>> *To:* "johnnis...@gmail.com <javascript:>"
> >>>> <mailto:johnnis...@gmail.com <javascript:>>
> >>>> <johnnis...@gmail.com <javascript:>>
> >>>> <mailto:johnnis...@gmail.com <javascript:>>
> >>>> *Cc:* "ma...@psu.edu <javascript:>"
> <mailto:ma...@psu.edu <javascript:>>
> >>>> <ma...@psu.edu <javascript:>>
> <mailto:ma...@psu.edu <javascript:>>;
> >>>> "geoengi...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>"
> >>>> <mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>>
> >>>> <geoengi...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>>
> >>>> <mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com
> <javascript:>>; Greg Rau
> >>>> <gh...@sbcglobal.net <javascript:>>
> <mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net <javascript:>>;
> >>>> James Hansen <jimeh...@gmail.com <javascript:>>
> >>>> <mailto:jimeh...@gmail.com <javascript:>>; P.
> Wadhams
> >>>> <pw...@cam.ac.uk <javascript:>>
> <mailto:pw...@cam.ac.uk <javascript:>>; John
> >>>> Topping <jtopp...@yahoo.com <javascript:>>
> >>>> <mailto:jtopp...@yahoo.com <javascript:>>;
> Robert Corell
> >>>> <robert...@getf.org <javascript:>>
> >>>> <mailto:robert...@getf.org <javascript:>>;
> Peter R Carter
> >>>> <peterc...@shaw.ca <javascript:>>
> <mailto:peterc...@shaw.ca <javascript:>>

> <javascript:>>johnnis...@gmail.com <javascript:>
> >>>> <mailto:johnnis...@gmail.com <javascript:>>>

> >>>>> <gh...@sbcglobal.net <javascript:>
> <mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net <javascript:>>>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> <http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/15/march-temperature-smashes-100-year-global-record
> <http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/15/march-temperature-smashes-100-year-global-record>>http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/15/march-temperature-smashes-100-year-global-record

> <http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/15/march-temperature-smashes-100-year-global-record>
>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> "The UK Met Office expects 2016 to set a new
> >>>>> record
> >>>>>
> <http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/17/2016-set-to-be-hottest-year-on-record-globally
> <http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/17/2016-set-to-be-hottest-year-on-record-globally>>,
>
> >>>>> meaning the global temperature record is
> set to
> >>>>> have been broken for three years in a row.
> >>>>> Prof Michael Mann, a climate scientist at
> Penn
> >>>>> State University in the US, responded to the
> >>>>> March data by saying: “Wow. I continue to be
> >>>>> shocked by what we are seeing.” He said the
> >>>>> world had now been hovering close to the
> >>>>> threshold of “dangerous” warming for two
> >>>>> months, something not seen before.
> >>>>> “The [new data] is a reminder of how
> perilously
> >>>>> close we now are to permanently crossing into
> >>>>> dangerous territory,” Mann said. “It
> >>>>> underscores the urgency of reducing global
> >>>>> carbon emissions.”
> >>>>> GR - and the need to seriously consider
> >>>>> additional ways of managing CO2 and climate.
>

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com>.

> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com>.

[Greg Rau]

If you are going to use marine biomass for centralized (coastal) negative emissions energy production, I would encourage you to convert and store the resulting CO2 as ocean alkalinity*.  That way no one can accuse you robbing carbon from the ocean and not immediately returning it (in a much more beneficial form), in contrast to CCS.  Ditto for non C elements. Both the gaseous and solid combustion effluent could be hydrated/reacted in the same seawater+carbonate stream used above and returned to the sea. Thus "precious" nutrients (and plankton souls) are respectfully returned to the ocean - only marine energy is extracted and nothing else. Or would the environment (and ethics) police label this as pollution (rather than cremation/at sea burial after, admittedly, premature plankton death)?  Proactive recycling of biomass/nutrients is essential standard procedure in managed (ag) land ecosystems, why not also marine ones?

Greg

*http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es102671x

---

From: M.Hori <mh...@mxb.mesh.ne.jp>
To: geoengi...@googlegroups.com; Michael Hayes <vogle...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 8:38 AM
Subject: Re: [geo] March temperature smashes 100-year global record

> an email to geoengineering+unsub...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:geoengineering+unsub...@googlegroups.com>.

> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.

[Ronal W. Larson]

List,  Dr.  Hori, Michael Hayes (adding Greg Rau)

I respond in part because mine is the message furthest down in this list - and I am remiss in responding to Dr. Rau.  But I am also interested in the Hayes-Hori dialog.

This note is also about what the term “BECCS” means.   Note that in most discussions on this list BECCS refers only to electrical generation.  Dr. Hori (ut maybe not Michael) is referring to biofuels.  My preference is to use “BECCS” only for electrical generation, but to recognize that biochar can be a co-product with both electrical and fuel generation (with which I believe Michael concurs - and maybe also Drs.  Hori and Rau).  Michael does not use BECCS in he same way.

See inserts below for four messages.

On Apr 25, 2016, at 9:38 AM, M.Hori <mh...@mxb.mesh.ne.jp> wrote:

Dear Dr. Hayes

Thank you very much for your comment. It is very encouraging.

1. I would welcome you or anyone to reference my paper to your marine  based infrastructure/investment project or any other projects for global  environment restoration and sustainable world energy supply.

2. I am interested in your marine biomass BECCS concept, reading its  features you wrote. Some marine biomass (algae) grow faster than  terrestrial plants, so I think that marine BECCS process may better be  centralized with easier assembling of biomass.

[RWL:   Michael Hayes (next) uses “BECCS” to mainly (or only?) mean “biochar”, whereas you (Dr.  Hori, below) do not do so.  I believe Michael is promoting decentralization with land use of ocean-generated biomass (as biochar).  The nuclear issue then relates to economies of scale.  I am uncertain the scale of Dr. Hori’s nuclear plants/

3. I think that the global CDR task and the world energy supply task are  both indispensable in the coming decades, and that the both tasks will  be accomplished most effectively and efficiently by an integrated  approach. The Carbon-Negative Energy System is a reference concept in  this direction. I hope it will be upgraded, updated, revised and  combined with other processes for our global tasks.

[RWL:  Same for all of us on this thread, I believe.  So thanks for your emphasizing a possible (and surprising) role for nuclear energy in CDR - with biofuels.

Best regards,

Masao Hori
mh...@mxb.mesh.ne.jp
-------------------------------------

Michael Hayes wrote on 2016/04/22 8:16:

[RWL:  I have communicated a good bit with Michael, and fully support his emphasis on “blue” carbon.  Here I only underline/bold how he is emphasizing biochar (which I believe is synonymous with BECCS for Michael) - and not the more common reservation of “BECCS” to mean deep underground placement of pressurized/liquid CO2,  following electrical generation.  But I also ask for his comments on the word “BECCS” here.

[RWL:   In this 10-pager, the word “BECCS” appears once, and “biochar” 21 times.  The electricity generation here is via nuclear - so BECCS is not needed or reasonable to discuss.

A surprise to me was reference to 60% increase in this sentence on his page 4:   “This synergistic biomass-nuclear process can increase the effective carbon removal amount by both biochar and biofuel about 60% compared to a similar biomass-only process when processing the same amount of biomass.”   There are very few biochar producers working with biofuels.  The main one I know of (http://www.coolplanet.com/) does not use Fischer-Tropsch.  But I can conceive that nuclear thermal might have a place with biomass drying (Dr. Hori has a figure showing drying with nuclear electricity).

I can’t be sure of why Dr.  Hori has emphasized biochar in his response to Greg - but note that most of the biochar (charcoal used in agriculture/horticulture) literature over the 100 years prior to about 2000 was in Japanese.

[RWL:   Not reproduced here, but I think we can do more with biomass (Dr.  Hori showing biomass harvest for CDR as 6 Gt C/yr, with biochar from that at 1.1 Gt C/yr),  Additionally, more biochar is possible when co-produced with electrical and thermal needs in mind.  But also much more when using ocean resources (per Michael Hayes).   I can’t see that Dr.  Hori is using ocean biomass.

   Masao Hori
    Nuclear Systems Association, Japan
    Tel: (81) 90-9683-1132
    Email: mh...@mxb.mesh.ne.jp <javascript:>
   ----------------------------

   Greg Rau wrote on 2016/04/21 10:27:

[RWL:  I believe the above contribution from Dr.  Hori is based on this comment on BECCS (not biochar?) from Dr. Rau four days ago, replying to me.

   > I assumed that we are talking about negative emissions energy
   > production.  Unclear how biochar fits in here, unless someone has
   > figured out: biomass ---> biochar + energy (essential burning the
   > hydrogen rather than the carbon).

[RWL:   I don’t understand the above.  There are hundreds of biochar companies now - with at least a dozen (and many more academic and others) who are producing both biochar and energy on a daily basis.  And probably about half the energy is from carbon (the weight loss is about 3/4- but only 1/2 the carbon is lost as CO2 in the pyrolysis process).  A beauty of the biochar production process (for CDR) is that so much of the hydrogen can be removed for energy purposes; the considerable energy value of H2 in biomass is not needed for CDR.

If $100/tonne CO2 is a
   showstopper for
   > negative emissions energy, then  why is $100/tonne CCS as applied
   to BE
   > the darling of this field?

[RWL:   I didn’t mean to say that $100/tonne CO2 was a showstopper.  It probably is cheaper than the alternative of not aggressively pursuing CDR (agreeing with you I think).  But that numerical figure gives about $300/tonne biochar (combining the 44/12=3.67 value and the fact that biochar is not 100% carbon). Charcoal itself (not certified biochar) itself can be purchased today at a value less than $300/tonne.  In addition biochar has commercial value today in excess of its sale price (because of increased production and reduced other expenses - even possibly with a one-year payback - as can be seen in Cool-Planet literature).   So, I presume that Greg’s reference to “darling” means BECCS, not biochar.   In the absence of the $100/tonne CO2,  BECCS is expense only - not the investment category when one is buying biochar.

The energy penalty for CCS is on the
   order of
   > 30% of convention energy production. (Can we really afford to
   increase
   > land,water, nutrient use by 30% over standard BE to accommodate CCS?)

   > The energy penalty for adding C-negatvity to electrolytic H2
   production
   > may be <5% and does not require BE or land use (OK some mining
   required).

[RWL:  All of these statements apply to BECCS, not biochar.   The problem is compounded by needing to analyze the “payback” over hundreds of years, whereas BECCS requires continuing expenditures for monitoring (no out-year income).  These out-year payback computations must include many aspects of carbon - above and below ground.  I don’t see those out-year computations in almost any CDR comparison.

But my guess on why we will see BECCS languish is the user’s need for insurance - the same as for CCS.  The US’ DoE has already declined to pay for CCS insurance.

I am mostly agreeing here with Greg- not disagreeing.

Ron

[RWL:   Snip three points.

   >>
   >>         4.  Is anyone talking about low cost CDR starting with
   either
   >>         solar, wind, hydro, geothermal or other RE electric?
    Seems to
   >>         me it has to be biochar.
   >>
   >>         Ron
   >>
   >>

[RWL:     Snipped 5-6 messages.

[M.Hori]

Dear Ron and List

Thank you very much Ron for your comments. I would like to respond some
of the points you raised as follows;

A. Terminology of BECCS

In my reply to Michael I used 'BECCS' or 'Bio-energy with carbon capture
and storage' in a broad sense. 'BECCS' in the broad sense means 'biomass
energy utilization with carbon capture and storage via CO2 injection
into geological formations, via biochar or via any other forms of
carbon'. Though, I am not sure this usage is appropriate.

B. On your comments starting with 'RWL: '

1.

> The nuclear issue then relates to economies of

> scale. I am uncertain the scale of Dr. Hori’s nuclear plants/*

A typical nuclear reactor type applicable to high temperature processes
is 'HTGR' (High temperature gas-cooled reactor). A test reactor called
HTTR (criticality reached in 1998, in Japan) is helium gas cooled 30 MW
thermal power with outlet temperature of 950 degree Celsius.
Future HTGR commercial plants are being designed in Japan with capacity
of 600 MW thermal. It is not so large compared with a modern Light Water
Reactor with output of 1,700 MW electrical and 4,451 MW thermal (US-APWR).

2.
> *A surprise to me was reference to _60% increase_ in this sentence on
> his page 4: / “//This synergistic biomass-nuclear process can increase

> the effective carbon removal amount by both biochar and biofuel about
> 60% compared to a similar biomass-only process when processing the same
> amount of biomass.”

On the '60% increse', my rough estimate using the conditions I
postulated for the concept building is shown in the attached figure
titled "Comparison of Two Biomass Processes".

3.

> But I can conceive that nuclear thermal might have
> a place with biomass drying (Dr. Hori has a figure showing drying with

> nuclear electricity).*

The vapor compression and condensation drying methods (the compressor is
driven by electric power) are more efficient than conventional drying
methods using nuclear heat directly. In the reported case, nuclear
energy consumption is decreased to 1/1.8 by using nuclear electricity
from Light Water Reactors. Please see the attached figure titled
"Nuclear Energy Required for Drying of Biomass "

Best regards,

Masao Hori
mh...@mxb.mesh.ne.jp
-------------------------------

Ronal W. Larson wrote on 2016/04/26 4:26:

> List, Dr. Hori, Michael Hayes (adding Greg Rau)
>
> I respond in part because mine is the message furthest down in this list
> - and I am remiss in responding to Dr. Rau. But I am also interested in
> the Hayes-Hori dialog.
>
> This note is also about what the term “BECCS” means. Note that in most
> discussions on this list BECCS refers only to electrical generation.
> Dr. Hori (ut maybe not Michael) is referring to biofuels. My
> preference is to use “BECCS” only for electrical generation, but to
> recognize that biochar can be a co-product with both electrical and fuel
> generation (with which I believe Michael concurs - and maybe also Drs.
> Hori and Rau). Michael does not use BECCS in he same way.
>
> See inserts below for four messages.
>
>
>
>> On Apr 25, 2016, at 9:38 AM, M.Hori <mh...@mxb.mesh.ne.jp

>> <mailto:mh...@mxb.mesh.ne.jp>> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Dr. Hayes
>>
>> Thank you very much for your comment. It is very encouraging.
>>
>> 1. I would welcome you or anyone to reference my paper to your marine
>> based infrastructure/investment project or any other projects for
>> global environment restoration and sustainable world energy supply.
>>
>> 2. I am interested in your marine biomass BECCS concept, reading its
>> features you wrote. Some marine biomass (algae) grow faster than
>> terrestrial plants, so I think that marine BECCS process may better
>> be centralized with easier assembling of biomass.

> *[RWL: Michael Hayes (next) uses “BECCS” to mainly (or only?)

> mean “biochar”, whereas you (Dr. Hori, below) do not do so. I believe
> Michael is promoting decentralization with land use of ocean-generated
> biomass (as biochar). The nuclear issue then relates to economies of

> scale. I am uncertain the scale of Dr. Hori’s nuclear plants/*

>>
>> 3. I think that the global CDR task and the world energy supply task
>> are both indispensable in the coming decades, and that the both tasks
>> will be accomplished most effectively and efficiently by an
>> integrated approach. The Carbon-Negative Energy System is a reference
>> concept in this direction. I hope it will be upgraded, updated,
>> revised and combined with other processes for our global tasks.

> [*RWL: Same for all of us on this thread, I believe. So thanks for

> your emphasizing a possible (and surprising) role for nuclear energy in

> CDR - with biofuels.*
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Masao Hori
>> mh...@mxb.mesh.ne.jp <mailto:mh...@mxb.mesh.ne.jp>

>> -------------------------------------
>>
>> Michael Hayes wrote on 2016/04/22 8:16:

> *[RWL: I have communicated a good bit with Michael, and fully support

> his emphasis on “blue” carbon. Here I only underline/bold how he is
> emphasizing biochar (which I believe is synonymous with BECCS for
> Michael) - and not the more common reservation of “BECCS” to mean
> deep underground placement of pressurized/liquid CO2, following
> electrical generation. But I also ask for his comments on the

> word “BECCS” here.*

>>
>>> Dr. Hori et al.,
>>>
>>> I found your work to be the most articulate view of the potential for a

>>> global scale C-neg regimen using the _*BECCS*_ concept. I would like

>>> to ask
>>> your permission to reference your paper within a C-neg marine based
>>> infrastructure/investment concept which I'm currently working on. In
>>> brief, it is my view that using the many forms of marine based renewable
>>> energy for the production/processing/refinement of marine biomass, as
>>> opposed to land based energy (and other land resources), may offer the
>>> easiest path to truly large scale C-neg infrastructure investment.
>>> Further, the deployment of such large scale marine based C-neg
>>> infrastructure can also help address other pressing global issues,

>>> beyond the need for biofuels and *_biochar_*, inter alia the

>>> production of
>>> food, feed, organic fertilizer, polymers, pharma, and even the
>>> production of freshwater. This list is not exhaustive.
>>>
>>> The list of potential marine biomass based downstream products is
>>> extensive and growing as new marine biomass based inventions and science
>>> emerge. Thus, based upon currently available technology and scientific
>>> knowledge, large scale investments may potentially be attracted to a

>>> marine based C-neg regime sooner than vast scale land based *_BECCS_*

>>> options. Once large scale marine BECCS production and a reasonable
>>> investment return are both proven out, large scale investments in land

>>> based nuclear energy based _*BECCS*_ may become much easier to secure.

>>>
>>> There may be another technical option. China is currently committed to
>>> the development of and deployment of a rather large fleet of marine
>>> based nuclear plants. Coupling such marine based power infrastructure

>>> with marine_*BECCS*_ would make many of the drawbacks currently found
>>> within the land based _*BECCS*_ concept /simply moot/. Importantly, the

>>> addition of the profits generated by the many potential downstream
>>> marine based products, beyond biofuel and biochar, can help ensure a
>>> reasonable return on the overall investments. We have to face the fact

>>> that both biofuel and *_biochar_* are low margin products and both

>>> product
>>> streams need the benefits from additional profit streams.
>>>

>>> To conclude, your work on the nuclear powered _*BECCS*_ option should be
>>> considered as being central within the overall *_BECCS_* discussion

>>> due to
>>> its articulation, scope, and comprehensiveness. Expanding the work to
>>> include the marine space, and the vast resources which our great seas
>>> and even the high seas offer all of us, may also be worth accepting as a
>>> central idea as you point out in your paper /**/"The task of removing CO
>>> 2 and supplying fuel is a gigantic international public-works project,
>>> andit would evolve into creating new big environment/energy
>>> businesses.". If this effort is to reach the needed scale, it will
>>> require relatively secure and prosperous investment options at both the
>>> initial stage of deployment as well as for generations to come. I

>>> believe marine based _*BECCS*_ has the potential for early stage success
>>> which can pave the way for a long-term (generational) mix of _*BECCS*_

>>> options...including the nuclear.
>>>
>>>
>>> Best regards,
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at 10:57:46 PM UTC-7, mhori wrote:
>>>
>>> I tried to construct a Carbon Negative Energy System, which
>>> enables the
>>> CDR and energy supply integrally, by full use of available ‘clean’
>>> (non-carbon emitting) energy sources – renewable (biomass, solar,
>>> wind,
>>> hydro, etc.) and nuclear energies. The executive summary of this
>>> report
>>> was distributed to this list October last year, and the copy can be
>>> downloaded from below;
>>>
>>> "CARBON-NEGATIVE ENERGY SYSTEM -- Sustainable World Energy Supply and
>>> Global Environment Restoration Using Renewable and Nuclear Energies"
>>> (2015)
>>> http://www.ne.jp/asahi/mh/u/HoriCNES_ES.pdf
>>> <http://www.ne.jp/asahi/mh/u/HoriCNES_ES.pdf>

> *[RWL: In this 10-pager, the word “BECCS” appears once, and “biochar”

> 21 times. The electricity generation here is via nuclear - so BECCS is

> not needed or reasonable to discuss.*
> *
> *
> *A surprise to me was reference to _60% increase_ in this sentence on
> his page 4: / “//This synergistic biomass-nuclear process can increase

> the effective carbon removal amount by both biochar and biofuel about
> 60% compared to a similar biomass-only process when processing the same

> amount of biomass.” /There are very few biochar producers working with

> biofuels. The main one I know of (http://www.coolplanet.com/) does not
> use Fischer-Tropsch. But I can conceive that nuclear thermal might have
> a place with biomass drying (Dr. Hori has a figure showing drying with

> nuclear electricity).*
> *
> *
> *I can’t be sure of why Dr. Hori has emphasized biochar in his response

> to Greg - but note that most of the biochar (charcoal used in
> agriculture/horticulture) literature over the 100 years prior to about

> 2000 was in Japanese.*
> *
> *
> *
> *

>>>
>>> The concept is as follows;
>>>
>>> C: Carbon in biomass, typically C6H10O5
>>>
>>> By the carbonization of biomass;
>>>

>>> C (biomass) -> C (_*biochar*_) + C (volatile)

>>>
>>> C (biochar) is up to a half of C (biomass) in usual carbonization

>>> process, and this _*biochar*_ acts as the CDR.

>>>
>>> By the steam gasification process of the remaining C (volatile) ;
>>>
>>> C (volatile) + H2O -> CO + H2
>>>
>>> This [CO + H2] (Syngas or synthesis gas) is used as important
>>> industrial
>>> resources (for process and energy).
>>>
>>> Syngas can also be used to produce hydrocarbons (CH2 in constituent
>>> ratio) such as diesel oil, which could replace petroleum products for
>>> transportation and other fields as ‘clean’ fuels.
>>>
>>> A typical process is the Fischer-Tropsch synthesis as follows;
>>>
>>> CO + 2H2 -> CH2 + H2O
>>>
>>> In the above processes, the steam gasification process is a strong
>>> endothermic reaction which needs large heat (131 kJ/mol). This
>>> heat can
>>> be supplied from biomass itself by combusting part of it, but if the
>>> heat is supplied by nuclear energy, the effective carbon removal
>>> amount

>>> (by both _*biochar*_ and biofuel) can be increased about 60%

>>> compared to
>>> biomass-only process when processing the same amount of biomass.
>>>
>>> It would be crucial to increase the ratio of CDR amount to the
>>> processed
>>> biomass amount when the available global biomass resources are
>>> limited,
>>> and this biomass-nuclear synergistic process will be useful for such
>>> circumstances.
>>>
>>> By the way, as the heat supplied to the endothermic reaction will be
>>> contained in the heat of combustion of products, the nuclear heat is
>>> effectively converted to a part of the heat of fuel, deducting heat
>>> loss
>>> during the processes.
>>>
>>> A quantitative image of global carbon/energy balance in Year2065 by
>>> this
>>> Carbon Negative Energy System is shown in the attached figure.

> *[RWL: Not reproduced here, but I think we can do more with biomass

> (Dr. Hori showing biomass harvest for CDR as 6 Gt C/yr, with biochar
> from that at 1.1 Gt C/yr), Additionally, more biochar is possible when
> co-produced with electrical and thermal needs in mind. But also much
> more when using ocean resources (per Michael Hayes). I can’t see that

> Dr. Hori is using ocean biomass.*

>>>
>>>
>>> Masao Hori
>>> Nuclear Systems Association, Japan
>>> Tel: (81) 90-9683-1132

>>> Email: mh...@mxb.mesh.ne.jp <http://mxb.mesh.ne.jp> <javascript:>

>>> ----------------------------
>>>
>>> Greg Rau wrote on 2016/04/21 10:27:

> *[RWL: I believe the above contribution from Dr. Hori is based on this
> comment on BECCS (not biochar?) from Dr. Rau four days ago, replying to me.*

>>>
>>> > I assumed that we are talking about negative emissions energy
>>> > production. Unclear how biochar fits in here, unless someone has
>>> > figured out: biomass ---> biochar + energy (essential burning the
>>> > hydrogen rather than the carbon).

> *[RWL: I don’t understand the above. There are hundreds of biochar

> companies now - with at least a dozen (and many more academic and
> others) who are producing both biochar and energy on a daily basis. And
> probably about half the energy is from carbon (the weight loss is about
> 3/4- but only 1/2 the carbon is lost as CO2 in the pyrolysis process).
> A beauty of the biochar production process (for CDR) is that so much of
> the hydrogen can be removed for energy purposes; the considerable energy

> value of H2 in biomass is not needed for CDR.*

>
>>> If $100/tonne CO2 is a
>>> showstopper for
>>> > negative emissions energy, then why is $100/tonne CCS as applied
>>> to BE
>>> > the darling of this field?

> *[RWL: I didn’t mean to say that $100/tonne CO2 was a showstopper. It

> probably is cheaper than the alternative of not aggressively pursuing
> CDR (agreeing with you I think). But that numerical figure gives about
> $300/tonne biochar (combining the 44/12=3.67 value and the fact that
> biochar is not 100% carbon). Charcoal itself (not certified biochar)
> itself can be purchased today at a value less than $300/tonne. In
> addition biochar has commercial value today in excess of its sale price
> (because of increased production and reduced other expenses - even
> possibly with a one-year payback - as can be seen in Cool-Planet
> literature). So, I presume that Greg’s reference to “darling” means
> BECCS, not biochar. In the absence of the $100/tonne CO2, BECCS is

> expense only - not the investment category when one is buying biochar.*

>
>>> The energy penalty for CCS is on the
>>> order of
>>> > 30% of convention energy production. (Can we really afford to
>>> increase
>>> > land,water, nutrient use by 30% over standard BE to accommodate
>>> CCS?)
>>> > The energy penalty for adding C-negatvity to electrolytic H2
>>> production
>>> > may be <5% and does not require BE or land use (OK some mining
>>> required).

> *[RWL: All of these statements apply to BECCS, not biochar. The

> problem is compounded by needing to analyze the “payback” over hundreds
> of years, whereas BECCS requires continuing expenditures for monitoring
> (no out-year income). These out-year payback computations must include
> many aspects of carbon - above and below ground. I don’t see

> those out-year computations in almost any CDR comparison.*
> *But my guess on why we will see BECCS languish is the user’s need for

> insurance - the same as for CCS. The US’ DoE has already declined to

> pay for CCS insurance.*
> *
> *
> *I am mostly agreeing here with Greg- not disagreeing.*

>
> Ron
>
>>> > Greg
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> > *From:* Ronal W. Larson <rongre...@comcast.net

>>> <http://comcast.net> <javascript:>>
>>> > *To:* RAU greg <gh...@sbcglobal.net <http://sbcglobal.net>
>>> <javascript:>>;
>>> Geoengineering
>>> > <geoengi...@googlegroups.com <http://googlegroups.com>

>>> <javascript:>>
>>> > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 20, 2016 7:55 AM
>>> > *Subject:* Re: [geo] March temperature smashes 100-year global
>>> record
>>> >
>>> > Greg and list
>>> >
>>> > My emphasis was intended to be on the words “low cost”. Your
>>> > papers have talked about $100/tonne CO2. Biochar is growing
>>> quite
>>> > rapidly with no present subsidies - mostly because of paybacks
>>> (even
>>> > in year 1) in reduced irrigation and fertilization costs and
>>> > increased productivity. Only a few receiving financial benefits
>>> > from voluntary CDR payments today.
>>> >
>>> > Ron
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> On Apr 19, 2016, at 5:06 PM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net

>>> <http://sbcglobal.net>
>>> <javascript:>
>>> >> <mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net <http://sbcglobal.net>

>>> <javascript:>>> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Ron,
>>> >> As for your point 4, the C negative H2 I'm talking about is
>>> >> powered by renewable electricity (or nuclear).
>>> >> The basic idea is: H2O + base minerals + CO2 + renewable Vdc
>>> --->
>>> >> H2 + O2 + dissolved mineral bicarbonates (+ SiO2 if present).
>>> >> e.g. silicates -
>>> >> 4CO2g + 4H2O + Mg2SiO4s + Vdc ----> 2H2g + O2g + Mg2+ +
>>> 4HCO3- +
>>> >> SiO2s
>>> >> e.g. carbonates:
>>> >> CO2g + 2H2O + CaCO3s + Vdc ---->H2g + 1/2O2g + Ca2+ + 2HCO3-
>>> >> See the links I listed earlier.
>>> >> Furthermore, the energy cost of adding this CDR to
>>> electrolytic H2
>>> >> production is theoretically near zero because bicarbonation of
>>> >> minerals is exothermic. CO2 consumed per H2 generated ranges
>>> from
>>> >> 22 to 44 (tonnes/tonne).
>>> >> G
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> >> *From:* Ronal W. Larson <rongre...@comcast.net

>>> <http://comcast.net> <javascript:>
>>> >> <mailto:rongre...@comcast.net <http://comcast.net>

>>> <javascript:>>>
>>> >> *To:* RAU greg <gh...@sbcglobal.net

>>> <http://sbcglobal.net> <javascript:>
>>> <mailto:gh...@sbcglobal.net <http://sbcglobal.net> <javascript:>>>

>>> >> *Cc:* Stephen Salter <s.sa...@ed.ac.uk

>>> <http://ed.ac.uk> <javascript:>
>>> >> <mailto:s.sa...@ed.ac.uk <http://ed.ac.uk>
>>> <javascript:>>>; Geoengineering
>>> >> <geoengi...@googlegroups.com <http://googlegroups.com>
>>> <javascript:>
>>> >> <mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com
>>> <http://googlegroups.com> <javascript:>>>

>>> >> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 19, 2016 3:21 PM
>>> >> *Subject:* Re: [geo] March temperature smashes 100-year
>>> global
>>> >> record
>>> >>
>>> >> Greg, Stephen, list
>>> >>
>>> >>

> *[RWL: Snip three points.*

>>> >>
>>> >> 4. Is anyone talking about low cost CDR starting with
>>> either
>>> >> solar, wind, hydro, geothermal or other RE electric?
>>> Seems to
>>> >> me it has to be biochar.
>>> >>
>>> >> Ron
>>> >>
>>> >>

> *[RWL: Snipped 5-6 messages.*

[Michael Hayes]

Dr. Hori, Greg, Ron and list,

Dr. Hori, 

You mentioned that "both tasks (CDR and bioenergy production) will be accomplished most effectively and efficiently by an integrated approach". This reasoning needs to be amplified as there is a great deal of effort being put into promoting one concept over the other. To repeat the advice offered by Dr. Mike MacCracken a few years ago, "We need to circle the wagons (to promote multiple approaches to CDR) and try to not shoot inwards". I agree with Mike 100%. We need to find ways in-which as many CDR pathways as possible can be funded and used. The scale of the problem(s) is simply too vast to limit our options or overlook synergies between options.  

Dr. Hori, thank you for your comments and permission.

Greg, although there are reasonable uses for the inshore waters, such as nutrient removal and artisan fisheries etc., I routinely point to the benefits of using the marine deserts for vast scale marine biomass production as the local nutrient cycling issue simply becomes moot due to the fact that marine deserts have virtually no endemic surface species. Further, their is absolutely no risk of tsunami damage, the legal/policy issues are straight forward and rather simplistic, every nation can participate as a producer, the transport of the commodities to shore is easy as there are many ships that use the areas etc.

Marine Tragic Pattern

Concerning your recommendation to convert CO2 emissions for pH adjustment, that method would be used to its fullest extent. I see no reason why that method of CO2 conversion should not be universally used across the FF energy industry as it is our best point source capture method. In fact, the use of such pH adjustment material would be used within the marine biomass production itself...as well as olivine...and the passing ship traffic can possibly disseminate the pH adjustment material along their way to port. 

As to your advice that "Both the gaseous and solid combustion effluent could be hydrated/reacted in the same seawater+carbonate stream used above and returned to the sea. Thus "precious" nutrients (and plankton souls) are respectfully returned to the ocean - only marine energy is extracted and nothing else."  Returning effluent would require approval of at least the IMO and possibly the CBD. If the biomass production is within the inshore waters, returning effluent nutrients to those waters, unless well spread out over space and time, would most likely create a dead zone. However, working well offshore makes the local nutrient cycle, again, moot. The marine deserts have no more local surface life than a few sparse microbes and have a combined spacial value greater than some continents. Expecting to cultivate >6Gton biomass/y, as Dr. Hori projects as plausible as a production number at the nuclear plant(s) level, within the inshore waters is highly problematic on many environmental, regulatory and socioeconomic levels. 

In the marine deserts, however, vast scale infrastructure can be profitably operated and maintained for generations. As an interesting side note, although there are no indigenous life in the surface waters of the marine deserts, as we all know, there are transit species.Transit animals could actually be provided a sort of highway rest station where they could enjoy a few extra meals as the production platforms would also serve as a Fish Aggregating Device (great tuna fishing/whale watching anyone?). In short, vast scale marine biomass platforms would create their own wildlife populations from micro to macro species and thus produce a 'greening' of potentially vast areas of the marine deserts. 

With the greatest respect Greg, your position that "Proactive recycling of biomass/nutrients is essential standard procedure in managed (ag) land ecosystems, why not also marine ones?" does not mate up well with most opinions coming from the UNEP/FAO folks which calls for great concern about inshore water eutrophication. Actually vast scale removal of nutrients from inland waters would be an important environmental and even public health service in many regions of our great seas and inshore waters.

In brief, using the nutrients (and CO2, cooling water, renewable energy, the vast space etc.) found within the marine deserts provides us with virtually unlimited resources and room to grow. As everyone knows, the inshore regions are the marine equivalent of a rain forest in their complexities and the important environmental/socoeconomic services they provide. Obviously, my position is that working within the marine deserts will provide the most profitable and most environmentally balanced means to achieve vast scale (>6Gton/y) biomass production.

Greg, thanks for the comments and humor as usual.  

Ron, like Dr. Hori, I take a broad view of the BECCS label and I do believe that the IPCC WG 3 would allow a rather broad definition of BECCS. Further, I once proposed in a post that the use of the term Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Sequestration (CCUS) be used as opposed to BECCS as it, at least in my mind, better describes the vast scale CDR effort we now face. However, I'm not interested in going on some campaign about the name issue. I will, however, attempt to be more specific in my writings and simply avoid the use of BECCS. 

Recently, however, I have run across others who have begun to use CCUS as opposed to BECCS. The issues of profitable utilization of the CO2 and the proper sequestration of much of that carbon, via biochar and other means, should be as equally important as the biofuel factor. It is the profitable utilization of the carbon, inter alia production of food, feed, organic fertilizer, polymers etc, which will financially support the biofuel/biochar production and even the marine pH adjustment effort as they are low margin commodities and services respectively. We need the widest possible profitable utilization portfolio of carbon based goods and services so as to support such critical yet low margin commodities as well as the investor's desire for >8% return on the investments. 

Ron, I do always do appreciate your encouragement to be more precise.

Best regards,

Michael

> <mailto:geoengineering+unsub...@googlegroups.com>.