Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Fw: CATO: Why conservatives should join the left's campaign against nuclear

Expand Messages
  • csceadraham
    ... Section 7.2 of http://arch.rivm.nl/env/int/ipcc/pages_media/SRCCS-final/ IPCCSpecialReportonCarbondioxideCaptureandStorage.htm
    Message 1 of 4 , Dec 10, 2007
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Know_Nukes/message/20978
      "Stewart Peterson" <issues@...> wrote:

      > 110% is a fairly precise and very large number--
      > could you back that up with (a) how much silicate
      > it would take per ton of CO2, (b) a reasonable assurance
      > that there is enough material to do what you say
      > is needed for the amount of time you say it will be
      > necessary (remember, if this is a long-term effort
      > to neutralize continued fossil fuel emissions,
      > you're going to need to neutralize those emissions
      > more than once),
      > (c) how long it would take, and (d) why there wouldn't
      > be any other adverse environmental impacts
      > from this silicate dispersal? Generally when you spray
      > things into the environment, something happens, somewhere,
      > to something.

      Section 7.2 of
      http://arch.rivm.nl/env/int/ipcc/pages_media/SRCCS-final/
      IPCCSpecialReportonCarbondioxideCaptureandStorage.htm
      (http://preview.tinyurl.com/2bc7m2 ) deals with your points
      'a' and 'b'.

      It "deals ... with so-called mineral carbonation, where high
      concentration CO2 from a capture step (see Chapter 3)
      is brought into contact with metal oxide bearing materials
      with the purpose of fixing the CO2 as carbonates".

      It does not address intentionally causing
      atmospherically dilute CO2 to contact the materials outdoors,
      and this, I think, is an oversight.
      They justify it with these words in section 7.2.2:

      "Even at the low partial pressure of atmospheric CO2
      and at ambient temperature, carbonation of metal oxide
      bearing minerals occurs spontaneously, though on geological
      time scales ...

      Limitations arise from the formation of silica or carbonate
      layers on the mineral surface during carbonation that tend
      to hinder further reaction ..."

      Also known as "passivation".
      As previously said, experience with mine tailings
      is showing us, in answer to your 'c', that the particular
      geological time scale in question is, as I suspected but did
      not know in February, years to tens of years.

      We need only increase the surface area to defeat the passivation,
      and the energy required to do that, I calculated at
      http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/save-the-world-earn-25-million/#comment-26336
      .

      If we believe extra CO2 in the atmosphere is doing harm,
      it's not reasonable to require, as you do in 'd', that
      "there wouldn't be any other adverse environmental impacts",
      just that they be small compared to the harm of leaving
      the CO2 up.

      That harm doesn't have to be much for large amounts of
      MgCO3 and SiO2, or CaCO3 and SiO2, to be less harmful still.
      Section 7.2.5:

      magnesium carbonate and silica may find uses
      as soil enhancers, roadfill or filler for mining operations.
      Eventually mineral carbonation would have to operate at
      scales that would saturate any product or byproduct market ...

      A few hundred km^3 dispersed over tens of millions of km^2
      of desert, or hundreds of millions of km^2 of ocean,
      would be unobtrusive. It would be enough soil enhancer
      to make a 1-cm layer, if unmixed -- although it could not
      remain unmixed, because it would precipitate over a period
      of years -- or a 1-mm-deep layer on the ocean, again, if unmixed.

      Similarly, in a remedial effort to make harmless 100 or 200
      gigatonnes of past CO2 emissions, it's OK to put in more
      energy than was initially gained by emitting them;
      but as it turns out, the extra energy required is only 14
      percent, if the original emission was from burning pure carbon.


      --- G.R.L. Cowan, hydrogen-to-boron convert
      How shall the car gain nuclear cachet?
      http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html
    • impartial2k01
      ... http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/save-the-world-earn-25-million/#comment-26336 ... Greenhouse gases Eating carbon Nov 13th 2008 From
      Message 2 of 4 , Nov 14, 2008
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In Know_Nukes@yahoogroups.com, "csceadraham" <csceadraham@...> wrote:
        >
        > --- In http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Know_Nukes/message/20978
        > "Stewart Peterson" <issues@> wrote:
        >
        > > 110% is a fairly precise and very large number--
        > > could you back that up with (a) how much silicate
        > > it would take per ton of CO2, (b) a reasonable assurance
        > > that there is enough material to do what you say
        > > is needed for the amount of time you say it will be
        > > necessary (remember, if this is a long-term effort
        > > to neutralize continued fossil fuel emissions,
        > > you're going to need to neutralize those emissions
        > > more than once),
        > > (c) how long it would take, and (d) why there wouldn't
        > > be any other adverse environmental impacts
        > > from this silicate dispersal? Generally when you spray
        > > things into the environment, something happens, somewhere,
        > > to something.
        >
        > Section 7.2 of
        > http://arch.rivm.nl/env/int/ipcc/pages_media/SRCCS-final/
        > IPCCSpecialReportonCarbondioxideCaptureandStorage.htm
        > (http://preview.tinyurl.com/2bc7m2 ) deals with your points
        > 'a' and 'b'.
        >
        > It "deals ... with so-called mineral carbonation, where high
        > concentration CO2 from a capture step (see Chapter 3)
        > is brought into contact with metal oxide bearing materials
        > with the purpose of fixing the CO2 as carbonates".
        >
        > It does not address intentionally causing
        > atmospherically dilute CO2 to contact the materials outdoors,
        > and this, I think, is an oversight.
        > They justify it with these words in section 7.2.2:
        >
        > "Even at the low partial pressure of atmospheric CO2
        > and at ambient temperature, carbonation of metal oxide
        > bearing minerals occurs spontaneously, though on geological
        > time scales ...
        >
        > Limitations arise from the formation of silica or carbonate
        > layers on the mineral surface during carbonation that tend
        > to hinder further reaction ..."
        >
        > Also known as "passivation".
        > As previously said, experience with mine tailings
        > is showing us, in answer to your 'c', that the particular
        > geological time scale in question is, as I suspected but did
        > not know in February, years to tens of years.
        >
        > We need only increase the surface area to defeat the passivation,
        > and the energy required to do that, I calculated at
        >
        http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/save-the-world-earn-25-million/#comment-26336
        > .
        >
        > If we believe extra CO2 in the atmosphere is doing harm,
        > it's not reasonable to require, as you do in 'd', that
        > "there wouldn't be any other adverse environmental impacts",
        > just that they be small compared to the harm of leaving
        > the CO2 up.
        >
        > That harm doesn't have to be much for large amounts of
        > MgCO3 and SiO2, or CaCO3 and SiO2, to be less harmful still.
        > Section 7.2.5:
        >
        > magnesium carbonate and silica may find uses
        > as soil enhancers, roadfill or filler for mining operations.
        > Eventually mineral carbonation would have to operate at
        > scales that would saturate any product or byproduct market ...
        >
        > A few hundred km^3 dispersed over tens of millions of km^2
        > of desert, or hundreds of millions of km^2 of ocean,
        > would be unobtrusive. It would be enough soil enhancer
        > to make a 1-cm layer, if unmixed -- although it could not
        > remain unmixed, because it would precipitate over a period
        > of years -- or a 1-mm-deep layer on the ocean, again, if unmixed.
        >
        > Similarly, in a remedial effort to make harmless 100 or 200
        > gigatonnes of past CO2 emissions, it's OK to put in more
        > energy than was initially gained by emitting them;
        > but as it turns out, the extra energy required is only 14
        > percent, if the original emission was from burning pure carbon.
        >
        >
        > --- G.R.L. Cowan, hydrogen-to-boron convert
        > How shall the car gain nuclear cachet?
        > http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html


        Greenhouse gases
        Eating carbon

        Nov 13th 2008
        From The Economist print edition
        There is a type of rock with a voracious appetite for carbon dioxide

        ONE way of helping to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide into the
        atmosphere is to pump the gas into underground caverns or old oil
        fields. But there is also a rock that is happy to gobble it up, and
        according to the latest research its appetite for the greenhouse gas
        is not only massive but could also be increased by a little human
        intervention.

        The rock is peridotite, which is one of the main rocks in the upper
        mantle, an area that provides a girth below the Earth's crust. The
        rock occurs some 20km or more down, although in areas where plate
        tectonics have forced up some of the mantle, peridotite reaches the
        surface. This happens in part of the Omani desert which Peter Kelemen
        and Juerg Matter, both from Columbia University, New York, have
        studied for years.

        Geologists have long known that when peridotite is exposed to the air
        it can react quickly with carbon dioxide to form carbonates like
        limestone or marble. Some people have looked at the idea of grinding
        up peridotite and using it to soak up emissions from power stations,
        but the process turns out to be expensive, partly because of the costs
        of transporting all the rock. The transportation would also create
        emissions. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Messrs
        Kelemen and Matter suggest an alternative: pumping the gas from places
        where it is produced and into underground strata of peridotite.

        The team has shown that the Omani peridotite absorbs tens of thousands
        of tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, far more than anyone had thought.
        By drilling and fracturing the rock they believe they can start a
        process to increase the absorption rate by 100,000 times or more. They
        estimate this would allow the Omani outcrop, which extends down some
        5km, alone to absorb some 4 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide a year,
        which is a substantial part of the annual 30 billion or so tonnes of
        the gas that humans send into the atmosphere, mostly by burning fossil
        fuels.

        With such rocks situated in an area of the world where an increasing
        amount of energy is produced and consumed, it potentially provides a
        convenient carbon sink for the region's energy industry, say the
        researchers. Peridotite can also be found at the surface in other
        parts of the world, including some Pacific islands, along the coasts
        of Greece and Croatia, and in smaller deposits in America. Nor is it
        the only rock with carbon-eating potential. The researchers are now
        looking at volcanic basalt in a new project in Iceland.

        http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12592256
      • csceadraham
        ... http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/save-the-world-earn-25-million/#comment-26336 ... A third option I find persuasive is to pulverize
        Message 3 of 4 , Nov 25, 2008
        View Source
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Know_Nukes/message/22893
          "impartial2k01" <impartial2k01@...> wrote:

          > --- In Know_Nukes@yahoogroups.com, "csceadraham" <csceadraham@> wrote:
          > >
          > > --- In http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Know_Nukes/message/20978
          > > "Stewart Peterson" <issues@> wrote:
          > >
          > > > 110% is a fairly precise and very large number--
          > > > could you back that up with (a) how much silicate
          > > > it would take per ton of CO2, (b) a reasonable assurance
          > > > that there is enough material to do what you say
          > > > is needed for the amount of time you say it will be
          > > > necessary (remember, if this is a long-term effort
          > > > to neutralize continued fossil fuel emissions,
          > > > you're going to need to neutralize those emissions
          > > > more than once),
          > > > (c) how long it would take, and (d) why there wouldn't
          > > > be any other adverse environmental impacts
          > > > from this silicate dispersal? Generally when you spray
          > > > things into the environment, something happens, somewhere,
          > > > to something.
          > >
          > > Section 7.2 of
          > > http://arch.rivm.nl/env/int/ipcc/pages_media/SRCCS-final/
          > > IPCCSpecialReportonCarbondioxideCaptureandStorage.htm
          > > (http://preview.tinyurl.com/2bc7m2 ) deals with your points
          > > 'a' and 'b'.
          > >
          > > It "deals ... with so-called mineral carbonation, where high
          > > concentration CO2 from a capture step (see Chapter 3)
          > > is brought into contact with metal oxide bearing materials
          > > with the purpose of fixing the CO2 as carbonates".
          > >
          > > It does not address intentionally causing
          > > atmospherically dilute CO2 to contact the materials outdoors,
          > > and this, I think, is an oversight.
          > > They justify it with these words in section 7.2.2:
          > >
          > > "Even at the low partial pressure of atmospheric CO2
          > > and at ambient temperature, carbonation of metal oxide
          > > bearing minerals occurs spontaneously, though on geological
          > > time scales ...
          > >
          > > Limitations arise from the formation of silica or carbonate
          > > layers on the mineral surface during carbonation that tend
          > > to hinder further reaction ..."
          > >
          > > Also known as "passivation".
          > > As previously said, experience with mine tailings
          > > is showing us, in answer to your 'c', that the particular
          > > geological time scale in question is, as I suspected but did
          > > not know in February, years to tens of years.
          > >
          > > We need only increase the surface area to defeat the passivation,
          > > and the energy required to do that, I calculated at
          > >
          >
          http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/02/save-the-world-earn-25-million/#comment-26336
          > > .
          > >
          > > If we believe extra CO2 in the atmosphere is doing harm,
          > > it's not reasonable to require, as you do in 'd', that
          > > "there wouldn't be any other adverse environmental impacts",
          > > just that they be small compared to the harm of leaving
          > > the CO2 up.
          > >
          > > That harm doesn't have to be much for large amounts of
          > > MgCO3 and SiO2, or CaCO3 and SiO2, to be less harmful still.
          > > Section 7.2.5:
          > >
          > > magnesium carbonate and silica may find uses
          > > as soil enhancers, roadfill or filler for mining operations.
          > > Eventually mineral carbonation would have to operate at
          > > scales that would saturate any product or byproduct market ...
          > >
          > > A few hundred km^3 dispersed over tens of millions of km^2
          > > of desert, or hundreds of millions of km^2 of ocean,
          > > would be unobtrusive. It would be enough soil enhancer
          > > to make a 1-cm layer, if unmixed -- although it could not
          > > remain unmixed, because it would precipitate over a period
          > > of years -- or a 1-mm-deep layer on the ocean, again, if unmixed.
          > >
          > > Similarly, in a remedial effort to make harmless 100 or 200
          > > gigatonnes of past CO2 emissions, it's OK to put in more
          > > energy than was initially gained by emitting them;
          > > but as it turns out, the extra energy required is only 14
          > > percent, if the original emission was from burning pure carbon.
          > >
          > >
          > > --- G.R.L. Cowan, hydrogen-to-boron convert
          > > How shall the car gain nuclear cachet?
          > > http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html
          >
          >
          > Greenhouse gases
          > Eating carbon
          >
          > Nov 13th 2008
          > From The Economist print edition
          > There is a type of rock with a voracious appetite for carbon dioxide
          >
          > ONE way of helping to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide into the
          > atmosphere is to pump the gas into underground caverns or old oil
          > fields. But there is also a rock that is happy to gobble it up, and
          > according to the latest research its appetite for the greenhouse gas
          > is not only massive but could also be increased by a little human
          > intervention.
          >
          > The rock is peridotite, which is one of the main rocks in the upper
          > mantle, an area that provides a girth below the Earth's crust. The
          > rock occurs some 20km or more down, although in areas where plate
          > tectonics have forced up some of the mantle, peridotite reaches the
          > surface. This happens in part of the Omani desert which Peter Kelemen
          > and Juerg Matter, both from Columbia University, New York, have
          > studied for years.
          >
          > Geologists have long known that when peridotite is exposed to the air
          > it can react quickly with carbon dioxide to form carbonates like
          > limestone or marble. Some people have looked at the idea of grinding
          > up peridotite and using it to soak up emissions from power stations,
          > but the process turns out to be expensive, partly because of the costs
          > of transporting all the rock. The transportation would also create
          > emissions. In Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Messrs
          > Kelemen and Matter suggest an alternative: pumping the gas from places
          > where it is produced and into underground strata of peridotite.

          A third option I find persuasive is to pulverize and disperse
          the olivine -- peridot is another word for olivine, so peridotite
          an olivine-rich rock -- and transport it only far enough that it
          is spread out and atmospheric CO2 can get at it. This is worked out by
          me in various comments up-thread and down-thread of Dr. R.D.
          Schuiling's contribution at RealClimate: http://tinyurl.com/56eamb



          --- G.R.L. Cowan ('How fire can be tamed')
          http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.