Branson Prize: $25M for removing 1 Gigaton CO2/year

[DerekShannon]

Just announced February 9th by Virgin’s Richard Branson and Al Gore.

I thought it would be interesting to run the numbers for applying focus fusion generators directly to the sequestration of CO2 (liquefaction and then sinking it in the ocean, for example) vs. replacing existing generators. Should focus fusion prove feasible, its projected economics will obviously drive the latter, but I was surprised that it seemed to take fewer generators for direct sequestration than for replacement of existing sources–Using 225 kwH / ton CO2 for atmospheric removal (from slide 8 here) and 1150 kwH / ton CO2 (calculated from here), it of course takes about 5 times as many generators (a bit over 25,000 vs a bit over 5,000 for replacement vs direct removal). At $300,000 / generator, that’s $1.5 vs. $8 billion. My guess is that my figure for the required kilowatt-hours to sequester one ton CO2 might be low–Perhaps it is actually for removal directly from flue gas. Also I don’t include the cost of of all that atmospheric processing equipment. Additionally, sequestering CO2 by scavenging it from the atmosphere doesn’t solve the issues of mercury and other pollutants, etc., so in addition to economics there will still be compelling environmental reasons (and many, many others besides!) to replace fossil fuel energy generation.

Still, it is interesting to note that it might just take $1-10 billion in focus fusion generators to win a $25M prize–Yay! 😉

I invite anyone to run their own calcs, or provide updated energy requirements. As the prize does require removal of CO2 from the atmosphere and not just the prevention of CO2 generation, this might also be a good venue for people to suggest how best to apply focus fusion or unlimited clean energy in general most efficiently to removing that gigaton of CO2 annually. I won’t speculate on the efficiency, but just to throw a crazy idea out there I’ll suggest 5MW light buoys on the ocean at night/during polar winters, with the added biological productivity sinking down to the seabed with a load of carbon. Nope, probably not as good as just direct atmospheric processing, and you have to make sure the thermal pollution doesn’t outweigh the CO2 reduction!

Whatever the best way of applying focus fusion to the 1 gigaton necessary to win the Branson Prize, if we’d like to apply the same method to the total 10.5 gigatons expected annually by 2020, let’s by all means go for it!

Attached files

[Jolly Roger]

Sequestering CO2 instead of reducing it sounds like a variation on “closing the barn door after the horses are gone”.

Also, spending $2 Billion to make $25 Million sounds like a plan a politician would come up with. Al Gore would love it!

[texaslabrat]

Seeding the “desolate zone” of the ocean with iron is probably the most cost-effective way of removing CO2 from the atmosphere…recent experiments show a fixation rate of 300,000:1 CO2-to-Fe. While I am not an expert on the latest commodity prices of iron…it seems that ~3000 tons of iron per year could feasibly be used in such a fashion pretty cheaply. So cheaply that the $25 million prize would actually be a pretty nice incentive….coupled with the carbon credits that could be exchanged for a profit. There’s at least one company who plans to make a business model out of exactly this process.

Direct sequestration via liquefaction/injection seems to be a “brute force” approach…no matter the energy source being used it will never be efficient enough to use as a global-scale solution in the time-scale that we’re interested in. Leveraging nature’s own mechanisms will nearly always yield orders of magnitude in improvements of efficiency and costs since the sun provides the energy to drive the processes. Focus fusion’s best contribution in this area probably lies in the elimination of future CO2 emissions over time as fossil fuel energy sources are phased out over the next few decades.

[Jolly Roger]

texaslabrat wrote: Seeding the “desolate zone” of the ocean with iron is probably the most cost-effective way of removing CO2 from the atmosphere…recent experiments show a fixation rate of 300,000:1 CO2-to-Fe. … There’s at least one company who plans to make a business model out of exactly this process.

Please provide links to sources of this information.

[texaslabrat]

OK 🙂 Here’s a few from a variety of scientific and pseudo-scientific (*cough*wikipedia*cough*) links:

http://www.agu.org/meetings/os06/os06-sessions/os06_OS35M.html
http://www.scor-int.org/2006GM/2006-Iron.pdf
http://carbonsequestration.blogspot.com/2006_05_01_archive.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization
http://news.com.com/Seeding+the+ocean+to+capture+carbon/2100-11395_3-6182861.html?tag=nefd.top
http://www.agu.org/revgeophys/chisho00/node3.html
http://www.google.com/search?q=2004+EIFEX+results&hl=en&start=0&sa=N

[Brian H]

Actually, these prizes always generate way more in the way of investment than the prize is worth. That’s kind of the point.

But … when Global Cooling kicks in instead, will they offer a prize to put the CO2 back where it belongs? 😆 😛

[Breakable]

Wont seeding oceans with Iron generate an algae bloom? It produces an opposite effect as a result.
I dont remmember the exact process, but basically it creates oxigen deprived zones due to decomposition, I think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology)

[texaslabrat]

Breakable wrote: Wont seeding oceans with Iron generate an algae bloom? It produces an opposite effect as a result.
I dont remmember the exact process, but basically it creates oxigen deprived zones due to decomposition, I think.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_zone_(ecology)

If you look at the 3rd link I provided, it goes through a lot of the pros/cons of such an endeavor. The short answer is that natural blooms created by wind-born iron fertilization via dust storms cover areas 10x as large as the proposed seeding areas..and no large-scale “dead zones” have ever been reported after such an event. Obviously, this is something that must be taken into consideration, but with proper scale and planning, I don’t think it’s an issue based on previous experimental and observational results.

[Breakable]

Seems to be quite extensive.
One issue I did not see adressed is that putting sequestering CO2 into ocean would make it more acidic.

[texaslabrat]

Breakable wrote: Seems to be quite extensive.
One issue I did not see adressed is that putting sequestering CO2 into ocean would make it more acidic.

A very valid concern..and one that is avoided in the ocean seeding method as the CO2 is locked away in the form of lime versus the “pure” CO2 sequestration plans that pump the gas directly to deep ocean waters. The best solution, of course..is to simply stop spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and let the earth heal on its own through natural mechanisms (assuming we haven’t reached a tipping point in climate change already).

[Breakable]

texaslabrat wrote: The best solution, of course..is to simply stop spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and let the earth heal on its own through natural mechanisms (assuming we haven’t reached a tipping point in climate change already).

Well this will happen in the end no matter what the people will do, and even if noone will be present to observe.

[Brian H]

Breakable wrote:

The best solution, of course..is to simply stop spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and let the earth heal on its own through natural mechanisms (assuming we haven’t reached a tipping point in climate change already).

Well this will happen in the end no matter what the people will do, and even if noone will be present to observe.
I think you Sad Sacks need some bucking-up. Read this: The Past and Future of Climate Change, and then report back! There will be a short quiz. 😆

[texaslabrat]

Brian H wrote:

The best solution, of course..is to simply stop spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and let the earth heal on its own through natural mechanisms (assuming we haven’t reached a tipping point in climate change already).

Well this will happen in the end no matter what the people will do, and even if noone will be present to observe.
I think you Sad Sacks need some bucking-up. Read this: The Past and Future of Climate Change, and then report back! There will be a short quiz. 😆

I’m not worried about “saving the earth”…I’m worried about “saving the humans”. Climate change is already quite evident in the arctic regions, and recent events in Antarctica with the edge “skirt” of the ice shelf is alarming. Gravimetric readings show a large movement in mass away from the poles, indicating melting ice (likely a major cuprit in skewing temperature readings into seeming relatively stable as the heat of fusion of ice absorbs the excess global thermal load–for now). Satellite measurements indicate an accelerating rise in sea levels, when there should have been a decline when the fresh water resoivours built over the last 50 years are taken into account. Yes, the earth will cycle back to “normal” at some point…but I would prefer if it could start along that path before we’re all dead from drowning, starving, or other misfortune of our own making. I don’t consider that viewpoint as alarmist..but rather a reasonable request 😉

[Brian H]

texaslabrat wrote:

The best solution, of course..is to simply stop spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and let the earth heal on its own through natural mechanisms (assuming we haven’t reached a tipping point in climate change already).

Well this will happen in the end no matter what the people will do, and even if noone will be present to observe.
I think you Sad Sacks need some bucking-up. Read this: The Past and Future of Climate Change, and then report back! There will be a short quiz. 😆

I’m not worried about “saving the earth”…I’m worried about “saving the humans”. Climate change is already quite evident in the arctic regions, and recent events in Antarctica with the edge “skirt” of the ice shelf is alarming. Gravimetric readings show a large movement in mass away from the poles, indicating melting ice (likely a major cuprit in skewing temperature readings into seeming relatively stable as the heat of fusion of ice absorbs the excess global thermal load–for now). Satellite measurements indicate an accelerating rise in sea levels, when there should have been a decline when the fresh water resoivours built over the last 50 years are taken into account. Yes, the earth will cycle back to “normal” at some point…but I would prefer if it could start along that path before we’re all dead from drowning, starving, or other misfortune of our own making. I don’t consider that viewpoint as alarmist..but rather a reasonable request 😉
You evidently didn’t do your reading assignment.
Your data sources are compromised, and the projections flawed.

Read the paper. :coolmad:

[texaslabrat]

Brian H wrote:
You evidently didn’t do your reading assignment.
Your data sources are compromised, and the projections flawed.

Read the paper. :coolmad:

back at ya. My data sources are people living in the Arctic area who see the permafrost melting and ice sheets disappearing and NASA’s own gravimetric satellite data (recently published in Discover magazine, if you care to look at it). I would offer that your single paper used as reference is flawed in that respect. But if you want to believe that everything’s hunky-dorey, you’re certainly entitled to your opinion (facts notwithstanding).

[Author]

Posts