Olivine Geoengeneering

Thanks Pro. I. Preface I will deal with rebuttals in the next round, I will use this round to forward my case against Olivine Engineering. II. Introduction Pro didn’t introduce Olivine Engineering explicitly except during the middle of her opening round, where she said: “Research into optimal methods of introducing crushed olivine particles in the oceans through land distribution with river runoff, coastal zone application, and/or by ship directly into the sea, to increase oceanic CO2 capture” The proposal is to disperse Olivine (Iron/Magnesium Silicate) in the oceans, which improves the ocean surface’s performance as a natural ‘carbon sink’ via increasing the alkalinity of the surface layer.[ http://environmentalresearchweb.org...] Carbon dioxide dissolves naturally in small quantities in water and forms carbonic acid, which is ‘trapped’ by any alkaline present in the ocean. With the theory out of the way I will attack the execution III. Carbon Expensive solution Olivine is poorly soluble in water, crystals just dumped into the ocean will take thousands of years to dissolve (which is why they don’t disappear after a rain shower), in order for olivine to effectively scrub CO2 it must be ground to a size if less than 1 micrometer in diameter, which is a fine industrial powder, much finer than sand or silica [http://www.phosphonics.com...]. The use of larger particle sizes results in the particles not dispersing in the oceans effectively, and just sinking as particles to the bottom of the ocean. The major problem with this is that the powder needs to be produced in this exceptionally fine grade, which requires significant energy input. Several studies indicate that as much as 30% of the potential carbon capture performed would be reemitted as CO2 in the grinding process.[ http://iopscience.iop.org...] To significantly alter the biosphere over 100 large vessels would be requires and a program that matched the size of the existing coal industry! The point is, why should we invest substantial money and effort into this type of program when investment is more effectively made on carbon-zero energy production technologies (such as next generation nuclear reactors, renewables, etc). In simulations by Wolf-Gladrow, they found that three gigatonnes of material (an already mindboggling figure) would only compensate for 9% of the planet’s emmissions, and requiring the utilization of a fleet of 100 large ships. [http://iopscience.iop.org...] The study continues: “However, with a carbon uptake rate of 0.28 g carbon per g of olivine (neglecting reduced efficiency) the recent fossil emissions of about 9 Pg C yr−1 are difficult if not impossible to be reduced solely based on olivine dissolution. An upper limit for the open ocean distribution of olivine is difficult to estimate, but such a limit certainly depends on shipping capacities, exploitation of olivine, and low distribution rates to prevent particle aggregation.” Attesting to the unfeasibility and significant ignorance of the consequences of this solution. A separate study puts the distribution numbers into perspective: “Those rates would still sequestrate only less than 20% of the emission until 2100, but would require that the nowadays available shipping capacity of tankers and bulk carriers is entirely used for olivine dissolution ten times a year.” Again, an unfeasible undertaking requires for only a 20% sequestering of CO2 emissions.[ http://epic.awi.de...] IV. Economics In addition to what I have already mentioned, olivine bioengineering has virtually zero collateral benefits, these measures generally little or no additional capital and business for the governments/bodies that utilize it, and as such is an unattractive economic solution. Technologies which seek to utilize CO2 capture for the generation for methanol, polymers, materials etc. are of significantly more economic interest and hence feasibility. Even if such technologies are less efficient, they would be a overall more beneficial solution(s). [ http://www3.imperial.ac.uk...][ http://www.renewableenergyfocus.com...] V. Biosphere It doesn’t take much imagination to find that bioengineering on the scale requires would result in significant changes on the marine biosphere, the dispersal of significant amounts of powdered olivine reduces the amount of light oceanic plankton. [http://www.smithsonianmag.com...]The other environmental effects of olivine geoengineering have not been thoroughly investigated, simply put we do not know enough about the process to make a call on whether or not it is going to have other further-down-the-chain effects. Until this is performed, or if Pro can provide it, we should dismiss such a significant proposal. VI. Summary I have raised a number of red flags to which I will be interested in seeing Pro’s responses to. Back to pro for her rebuttals!