FW: [Biochar] [CDR] Question about CDR and energy

personal WebURL: http://www.highstand.org/erohling/ejrhome.htm

secondary email: eelco_rohling@me.com

On 17 Mar 2022, at 15:26, Peter Fiekowsky <pfieko@gmail.com> wrote:

 

Eelco-

Thank you for the corrections and clarifications. I apologize for assuming too much in my too short response. 

 

The bottom line was that there are CDR mechanisms that can remove a trillion tons of CO2 that require very little energy and can be done now–even while we’re still burning fossil fuel.  I think your well reasoned response confirms that.

 

I think most people on this list are aware that triggers are different from the mechanism. It is well accepted that orbital mechanics triggered ice ages. You implied and I’ll make explicit that orbital mechanics do not remove CO2 from the
atmosphere, neither do ice-albedo changes. It’s CO2 removal we’re interested in.

 

The mechanism for ice ages can be expressed a bit more clearly, so that readers can see how we might utilize those low energy mechanisms, at least until there is sufficient carbon free energy available for running DAC. I’ll explain this–since
it is not yet well known by many interested in CDR.

 

I think it’s well accepted from ice core data that CO2 levels during the ice ages go down roughly the same amount as we’ve raised CO2 in the last 100 years, about 130 ppm. This corresponds to roughly a trillion tons of CO2 moved from the
atmosphere into the ocean going into the ice age; and then released back into the air typically 30,000 years later as the ice age ends. As you implied, and I’ll make explicit, some of the CO2 ends up as biocarbon (organic carbon), coming from photosynthesis,
and some ends up as “dissolved CO2” or inorganic carbon. Chemically inorganic carbon is more complicated than CO2, but starts as CO2 in the air, it dissolves into the water, like a soda water dispenser does, and eventually emerges out as CO2 again–like fizz
from soda water.

 

I think you’re arguing about how much of the trillion tons of CO2 stored in the ocean during ice ages is stored as organic versus inorganic carbon. This number is debated, and it may have varied in different parts of the ocean. So let’s
agree that it’s unknown, and perhaps unknowable since there is no fossil record from the midocean.

 

Although the ratio is unknown, there is decent evidence, from John Martin and many following him, that a large fraction was biocarbon originating from phytoplankton (plants) doing photosynthesis near the ocean surface. This photosynthesis
has been shown to be increased greatly by adding miniscule amounts of iron–about one milligram (1/1000 of a teaspoon) per square meter each year in many parts of the ocean. Thus the name ocean iron fertilization.

 

You may be arguing that 90% of the carbon was inorganic (“dissolved CO2”), not biocarbon. That might be true, and if so, that inorganic carbon phenomenon can be duplicated by suitable upwelling or downwelling, which also requires very little
energy–a few square meters of solar cells.

 

Regarding the synthetic limestone (CaCO3) from CaO and CO2, this reaction is exothermic, so the only energy required for pumping fluids, maybe $1 of electricity per ton CO2 sequestered.

 

Again, I apologize for leaving too much unsaid the first time.

Peter

 

On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 3:55 PM Eelco Rohling <eelco.rohling@anu.edu.au> wrote:

I am all for the start with CDR as soon as possible, but we should be careful to use gross (and wrong) generalisations when we want to make a point. OIF is not how nature produces ice ages.

Ice ages are “produced” in response to orbital forcing cycles. These are small on global average, but have considerable seasonal and spatial gradients. Then, a series of feedbacks is started. Key ones are ice-albedo feedback, and carbon
cycle feedbacks. Ice albedo should be obvious. Carbon cycle feedbacks, however, are not. They are not simply, or merely, or even dominantly OIF. Elements at play: (1) the solubility pump brings more carbon into cooling surface water and then deep water (through
deep-water formation). (2) changes in ocean circulation (and upwelling/outgassing) also come into play, creating expansion of deep-water masses that have more accumulated DIC. (3) the biological pump (which Peter equates to OIF, but it’s much more complicated
than just that process) plays a role in accumulation of DIC in the deep-water masses mentioned under 2. 

Overall, the total biological pump effect can be estimated from paired B/Ca (= carbonate ion proxy) and Cd/Ca (= nutrient proxy) analyses, and has been found to be about 50% if I’m not mistaken, during the last glacial maximum. But, as
said before, much of that is not due to OIF, but due to a whole host of processes that favour net DIC accumulation in the deep sea. Let’s assume that OIF makes up half of that amount. That would mean that 25% of the carbon-cycle influence on ice ages is due
to OIF, and carbon cycle (CO2) impact on ice ages is at best 30-50% of the total forcing/feedback story. So, in a rough approximation, OIF may have a 8-13% contribution in “producing” ice ages.

 

Gross generalisation won’t help when you want to rail against the opinions of scientists. It only gives them a means to push tyour argument aside. 

Again, I am all for a big simultaneous push on CDR along with net zero emissions, but we need to be more careful in our messaging of “facts”.

===

Prof. Eelco J. Rohling

(Ocean & Climate Change)

– 2012 Australian Laureate Fellow

– editor, Reviews of Geophysics

Research School of Earth Sciences

The Australian National University

Canberra, ACT 2601

Australia

Mobile: (+61) 434 667441

Tel. Office: (+61) 2 612 53857

e-mail: eelco.rohling@anu.edu.au

<PastedGraphic-1.tiff>

personal WebURL: http://www.highstand.org/erohling/ejrhome.htm

secondary email: eelco_rohling@me.com

<Book covers image-small.png>

 

On 17 Mar 2022, at 08:09 , Peter Fiekowsky <pfieko@gmail.com> wrote:

 

CDR using synthetic limestone (Blue Planet Systems) and OIF (how nature produces ice ages) don’t require significant energy. Although the peer reviewed literature doesn’t entertain many approaches to scaling them yet, there is no compelling
reason that they can’t be scaled while we’re transitioning to clean energy.

 

Peter

 

On Wed, Mar 16, 2022 at 1:57 PM Ye Tao <tao@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote:

The comment from the climate scientists is mostly correct, except that existing CDR is fundamentally inefficient.  A more correct phrasing is therefore:

"Effective CDR will require energy. That energy needs to be zero-carbon to make CDR relevant. Hence the need to decarbonize the energy sector first"

Ye

On 3/16/2022 4:43 PM, H simmens wrote:

I am on Twitter now engaging in a conversation with three well-known climate scientists who responded as follows when I argued that we need to start large scale CDR now and not wait to mid century:

"Effective CDR will require energy. That energy needs to be zero carbon to make CDR efficient. Hence the need to decarbonize the energy sector first"

How would you suggest I respond?

Herb

Herb Simmens

Author A Climate Vocabulary of the Future

@herbsimmens

 

—

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Healthy Planet Action Coalition” group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to

healthy-planet-action-coalition+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/4964d6ee-d22b-7093-6142-a316d7ed4a3b%40rowland.harvard.edu.

For more options, visit
https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

—

Peter Fiekowsky

Foundation
for Climate Restoration Founder and Chairman Emeritus

Restoring a proven safe climate (300 ppm CO2 by 2050) for the flourishing of humanity. Climate
restoration 2021 Book
summary

(650) 776-6871  Los Altos, California

 

—

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Carbon Dioxide Removal” group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to

CarbonDioxideRemoval+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAEr4H2mWoAAGEkoCsy5h%2BXk_E3XuWsmyZvMhGRkwH1fR8nHLag%40mail.gmail.com.

 

 

—

Peter Fiekowsky

Foundation
for Climate Restoration Founder and Chairman Emeritus

Restoring a proven safe climate (300 ppm CO2 by 2050) for the flourishing of humanity. Climate
restoration 2021 Book
summary

(650) 776-6871  Los Altos, California

 

—

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “Carbon Dioxide Removal” group.

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

To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAEr4H2mVES7sc1o64cB-2CPYsme90pB9t2j0Aj2nFQ%2BiHR831Q%40mail.gmail.com.