If this pans out, this is a huge idea -- and potentially a reprieve from climate disaster:
Tim Kruger, a management consultant at London firm Corven, is the brains behind the plan to resurrect the lime process. He argues that it could be made workable by locating it in regions that have a combination of low-cost "stranded" energy considered too remote to be economically viable to exploit -- like flared natural gas or solar energy in deserts -- and that are rich in limestone, making it feasible for calcination to take place on site.
Kruger says: "There are many such places -- for example, Australia's Nullarbor Plain would be a prime location for this process, as it has 10,000km3 of limestone and soaks up roughly 20MJ/m2 of solar irradiation every day."
The process of making lime generates CO2, but adding the lime to seawater absorbs almost twice as much CO2. The overall process is therefore "carbon negative."
"This process has the potential to reverse the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. It would be possible to reduce CO2 to pre-industrial levels," Kruger says.
And Professor Klaus Lackner, a researcher in the field from Columbia University, says: "The theoretical CO2 balance is roughly right ... it is certainly worth thinking through carefully."
The oceans are already the world's largest carbon sink, absorbing 2bn tonnes of carbon every year. Increasing absorption ability by just a few percent could dramatically increase CO2 uptake from the atmosphere.
This project is being developed in an open source manner. To find out more, please go to www.cquestrate.com, a new website, launched today.
Ask Umbra on buying carbon offsets
If REDD can’t save this….
Climate-news poem: Tck, tck, tck edition
Comments
View as Flat
GRLCowan Posted 8:21 pm
22 Jul 2008
I used to think limestone would work, and still do, but it's not the neatest method.
--- G.R.L. Cowan, H2 energy fan 'til ~1996
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:34 pm
22 Jul 2008
-David Ahlport
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 10:37 pm
22 Jul 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UBfN-wJQ--U
-David Ahlport
Permalink
josullivan58 Posted 10:58 pm
22 Jul 2008
http://www.enn.com/top_stories/spotlight/37721
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 12:37 am
23 Jul 2008
Real Climate comment
In terms of limestone, the argument seems to be that dumping huge amounts of limestone into the ocean is not in fact a good idea.
Permalink
JMG Posted 2:29 am
23 Jul 2008
Of all the geoengineering schemes I've heard, most of which seem insane, this one is the one that seems most like biomimicry and least like Rube Goldberg.
The 5% Project
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 2:59 am
23 Jul 2008
Another point from GreyFalcon's first link: none of the articles link compare putting up high voltage line and feeding the energy to do this into the grid with this. Also in terms of costs, you not only have to compare costs of doing this with the costs of putting putting the power into the grid, but the cost of the fossil fuel that would be displaced by putting the power into the grid. We need the hard figures, but I'd bet:
You get more sequestration via limestone than via putting the power into the grid
you get higher costs via limestone than putting power into the grid
the cost per unit of reductions is about the same, but you are better off putting in place renewable infrastructure faster. You can do limestone if that turns out to be a good idea, after we stop putting garbage into the atmosphere. The first rule of holes is: if you are in one, stop digging. The second rule of holes (which I just made up) is don't start filling the hole you are in until you are out of it.
I'm not against it in principle. Maybe dumping limestone in the ocean really would be harmless. Maybe the even when all costs are counted this is a really cheap way to get garbage out of the atmosphere. I'm all for a full evaluation being done. Also an ocean acidfied via Co2 and then with acidity reduced via limestone is not the same as an the state it started out with. Maybe this is better than the status quo, but I'd be really suspicious of unexpected consequences.
Also on one of my earlier points: they think this makes sense only using "stranded power". That implies that "unstranding" it might be more productive that producing limestone.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:04 am
23 Jul 2008
Flush the basic water and replace it with ocean water at the right time. It would filter pollutants from fertilizer run off and aereate the water as well.
Maybe using solar furnaces to convert the limestone would help, but it still sounds like a huge dangerous trip mining, species killing effort. A better use of the solar energy and land area would be solar for energy production that halts GHG intensive power generation.
I still think waste biodigestion/organic fertilizer energy production is the key to reversing GHG concentration. Along with renewable/conservation energy policy in general.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
314159265 Posted 4:05 am
23 Jul 2008
Cf. biochar, agrichar, terra preta.
Some numbers here: http://folkegunther.blogspot.com/
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 4:12 am
23 Jul 2008
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
alphaniner Posted 4:18 am
23 Jul 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:29 am
23 Jul 2008
Fertilizer from a biodigestor builds the soil eco-system and restores the sequestration ability of the crop land tuned into inert agrichem poisoned dustbowl ready to blow away in the next drought/wind storm event. Toxic dust in every lung. That can't be a good cost effective situation.
The char would have to be used for filtration or some other use, like combustion, where it doesn't get turned back into CO2.
I suspect if the valuable charcoal was produced it would inevitably be burned for profit when government regulator's backs were turned. Hear no GHG, see no GHG... let industry regulate itself, yeah that's the (GOP) ticket to big bribes (campaign contributions).
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
314159265 Posted 7:36 pm
23 Jul 2008
As far as I understand, biodigestion is emissions reduction (and a very serious one), whilst charcoal is sequestration.
Soil organic matter breaks down anyway. Charcoal takes significantly longer to break down (if ever, for all practical purpose). Plus: It stores/fixes nutritients (e.g. those delivered from your biodigestor), significantly reducing run off and nitro outgassing. That's why Amazonian char coal soil is still extremely fertile, after 500y.
So, forget about that Swedish study (or look at Folke Günther's blog for explanation) and have a look at terra preta instead.
Of course, just producing char coal from anything would be no help. You should 1) produce from biomass that would decay soon anyway 2) capture the pyrolysis gas for energy production.
Ceterum censeo: I'm still awaiting for the invention of a c21st wood gas car, driving carbon negative.
Permalink
katakanadian Posted 12:24 pm
24 Jul 2008
I think this idea may form a very small part of the solution to climate change but it should not be thought of as an easy fix that doesn't require us to do the much harder (and far more effective) job of conserving energy, switching to carbon-free energy sources, and restoring our ecosystems instead of strip mining the planet in an effort to remain lazy while buying the all latest toys.
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 3:17 pm
24 Jul 2008
Victory in Pattani
Permalink