Re: [Phys-L] averting the end of the world, maybe

[Jeffrey Schnick <JSchnick@Anselm.Edu>]

This is very cool.  Thanks for sharing.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phys-l [mailto:phys-l-bounces@www.phys-l.org] On Behalf Of John
> Denker
> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 5:16 PM
> To: Forum for Physics Educators
> Subject: [Phys-L] averting the end of the world, maybe
>
> Hi --
>
> Most of the schemes I've seen for "carbon sequestration" make no sense
> whatsoever.  However, here is one that might be in the right ballpark.
>
> Short version: Silicate rock reacts with CO2 to form carbonate rock plus silica.
>
>    R.D. Schuiling and O. Tickell,
>    "Olivine against climate change and ocean acidification"
>
> http://www.innovationconcepts.eu/res/literatuurSchuiling/olivineagainstcli
> matechange23.pdf
> also
>   R.D. Schuiling and P.L. de Boer
>   "Fast weathering  of olivine in shallow seas for cost-effective
>      CO2 capture and mitigation of global warming and ocean acidification"
>   http://alvastbedankt.nl/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Fast-Weathering.pdf
>
> The general idea has been known for a long time:
>   Berner, Lasaga, and Garrels
>   "The carbonate-silicate geochemical cycle and its effect on
>      atmospheric carbon dioxide over the past 100 million years"
>   http://shadow.eas.gatech.edu/~jean/paleo/Berner_1983.pdf
>
> I haven't looked into it super-closely, but it seems to me that Schuiling et al.
> might be underestimating the cost.  Still, though, even if the cost is 2x higher
> than estimated, it's still cheap compared to the end of the world.
>
> In particular, they make the point that CO2 capture does *not* need to be
> done right at the smokestack.  One CO2 molecule looks a lot like another, and
> the atmosphere is well mixed.  So CO2 molecules are fungible.  You can
> capture them wherever it's most convenient.  Also you don't need to take it
> out overnight.  A time scale of a few years is just fine, especially compared to
> the alternative, which is hundreds of years.
>
> If this is anywhere close to right, it solves important political problems as well
> as operational problems.  Climate deniers rely on saying either there's no
> problem, or there's nothing we can do about it (or both).  It changes the
> discussion completely is there is something that can be done at a not-
> completely-crazy cost.
>
> So we make a rule that says if you want to put X amount of fossil carbon into
> the air, you have to find enough olivine or wollastonite or whatever to
> compensate for at least /twice/ that much, grind it to dust and disperse it
> somewhere.  If this has beneficial side-effects
> (fertilizer) so much the better.
>
>     I worry that the deleterious side-effects have not been fully
>     accounted for.  Olivine can turn into things like chrysotile,
>     which is another name for asbestos, which you might not want
>     to be dispersing in enormous quantities.
>
> If it works out, this is a nice free-enterprise free-market solution.
> Note that "free enterprise" does not mean I am free to dump my sewage
> into your yard.  The same goes for CO2.  Right now the cost of dumping
> CO2 is an externality;  we need to make the polluters internalize this cost.
>
> This would add a noticeable (but not catastrophic) amount to the cost of
> burning fossil carbon.  This makes people unhappy, but still it's better than
> the end of the world.  It has a nifty free-market side effect, namely making
> renewables more attractive.
> _______________________________________________
> Forum for Physics Educators
> Phys-l@www.phys-l.org
> http://www.phys-l.org/mailman/listinfo/phys-l