Sometimes the acidity is compounded by some other chemical
reactions. Just something becoming neutral pH does not make it
necessarily good. Finnish paper industry tried to reduce
oxidation rate by neutralising acidic waters by sodium
hydroxide. Water became neutral, but sodium hydoxide brought
in other set of chemical reactions that nullified the benefit of
neutralisation effort of acidic waters. So the CDR techique does
not necessarily work out if cabonic acid amount is not reduced
in water, adding alkalines may only make bad for worse.
Anything tested will require laboratory or small scale monitored
schemes for years before all chemical reactions in play can
be properly accounted. Therefore, olivine or anything else added
in water may just pollute it even more - making it a mixture of
acids and alkalines. Hence the idea of neutralising acidified
lake waters by sodium hyroxide addition did not work. Nor will
it work if the water is alkaline to pour in sulphuric acid or
sodium acid, or anything else. Adding blue colour in red water
does not make it clean water...
> Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 18:18:45 +0000
> From:
[log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Olivine.
> To:
[log in to unmask]
>
> Than you Oliver,
> A most interesting assessment. I wasn't aware that the
original
> suggestion back sometime last year was for a land
application. From what
> I can recall it was most definitely suggested that it
would be applied
> to the oceans....somewhere.
> Anyway its a bit of a moot point as the obvious downside
is the
> extraction/recovery of olivine whether as a raw mineral
or as a mining
> waste by product. Either way it will have to be collected
and ground up.
> Even if it is applied to the land it must be remembered
that the
> decomposition process of minerals on land is extremely
slow compared to
> ocean seeding with a microscopic sized particle. I recall
an experiment
> from 6th form where we measured the times for certain
solid minerals to
> completely react with a chemical solution. The idea was
to demonstrate
> just how reactions could be controlled by the size of the
solid minerals
> used. This is exactly the same idea. If we want to be
serious about the
> problem of climate change then it would have to be a
rapid reaction.
> Otherwise it would simply fall behind the rate of co2
production (and
> the other carbon compounds causing climatic changes) and
we would be
> getting nowhere fast.
>
> As for the lifeforms in the oceans don't they build
calcium carbonate
> shells and in doing so absorb the carbon dioxide that
way? If so surely
> the increased acidity of the oceans as they stand now
would first need
> to be neutralised which would take a load of olivine or
similar mineral
> to accomplish this. Only then would the lifeforms
proliferate and take
> down the carbon compounds. Its the acidity that dissolves
the shells.
> Kev C
> On 22/01/2013 14:05, Oliver Tickell wrote:
> > Note that the article applies to the addition of
very fine (1um)
> > olivine powder direct to oceans. This requires a
huger energy input,
> > 10^4 times greater than that of creating the 100um
granules suitable
> > for spreading to land (grinding energy ~ surface
area).
> >
> > Yes, the volume of olivine required is large - but
then so is the
> > problem. By rule of thumb, you need the same weight
of olivine as of
> > the CO2 you want to sequester. So 1Gt of olivine for
1Gt of CO2
> > sequestered. And yes, it has to come from somewhere.
Fortunately it is
> > abundant and there are already huge volumes of it at
existing and
> > former mines as dumped overburden. For example, at
nickel mines, and
> > diamond mines. Maybe even at coal mines! Digging it
up and moving it
> > about will still have an impact, but a much smaller
one than allowing
> > global warming to let rip.
> >
> > BTW the preferential fertilisation of diatoms would
not be an
> > altogether bad thing. They are good at sequestering
carbon to ocean
> > depths in their own right. Also they are good at
feeding ocean food
> > chains leading to fish. But obviously impacts would
need to be closely
> > monitored - on top of everything else we are doing
to oceans, like
> > wiping out top level predators, over-fishing,
filling up with waste
> > plastic, etc. Also you need to consider the benefits
of restoring
> > alkalinity to the oceans which olivine application
would do (whether
> > applied to land or sea, the bicarbonate and silicic
acid would tend to
> > end up the oceans).
> >
> > Oliver.
> >
> > On 22/01/2013 07:06, Kevin Coleman wrote:
> >> To All,
> >> The article linked to below answers a few of my
questions from last
> >> year regarding the efficiency of Olivine as a
geoengineered solution
> >> to carbon emissions.
> >>
> >> As I said at the time the apparent benefits had
hidden costs in terms
> >> of energy required to extract, transport,
process and deliver to the
> >> ocean. The issue of global quantities required
to absorb the carbon
> >> compared to what is globally available which I
also asked to be
> >> clarified with no response has been only
partially answered in this
> >> particular piece.
> >>
> >> In this respect they do say that the amount
required to facilitate
> >> the absorption of about 9% carbon dioxide is
substantial (3 billion
> >> tonnes) and would require an industry equivalent
to the current coal
> >> mining industry and therefore equally
destructive to ecosystems. You
> >> cannot dig a hole without digging up some
natural habitat be it a
> >> lush rainforest or a desert. Each has its role
and function in the
> >> greater scheme of things. Neither is in
plentiful supply.
> >>
> >> When I challenged the idea last year no-one from
the AMEG cartel, who
> >> were promoting geoengineering the planet, was
willing to come forward
> >> with the necessary details to answer my
legitimate questions.
> >>
> >> It was only when I received an article from a
friend in the US that
> >> some of those questions were answered. The
article relates to some
> >> serious research into Olivine as a solution to
carbon capture in the
> >> oceans. Despite previous claims it appears to be
yet another dead end.
> >>
> >> But what I also find interesting is the last two
paragraphs
> >> references to two other solutions. They too are
now being also deemed
> >> equally doubtful. One of them being cloud
seeding.
> >>
> >> Kev C
> >>
http://www.terradaily.com/m/reports/Climate_Rock_fix_for_oceans_is_badly_flawed_study_999.html
> >>
> >>
> >
>
> --
> "Vision without action is a daydream. Action without
vision is a nightmare." Japanese Proverb
