Month: June 2018

Scheme: ‘Electrogeochemistry’ captures carbon, produces fuel, offsets ocean acidification

A new study published June 25 in Nature Climate Change evaluates the potential for recently described methods that capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through an “electrogeochemical” process that also generates hydrogen gas for use as fuel and creates by-products that can help counteract ocean acidification.

First author Greg Rau, a researcher in the Institute of Marine Sciences at UC Santa Cruz and visiting scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, said this technology significantly expands the options for negative emissions energy production.

The process uses electricity from a renewable energy source for electrolysis of saline water to generate hydrogen and oxygen, coupled with reactions involving globally abundant minerals to produce a solution that strongly absorbs and retains carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Rau and other researchers have developed several related methods, all of which involve electrochemistry, saline water, and carbonate or silicate minerals.

“It not only reduces atmospheric carbon dioxide, it also adds alkalinity to the ocean, so it’s a two-pronged benefit,” Rau said. “The process simply converts carbon dioxide into a dissolved mineral bicarbonate, which is already abundant in the ocean and helps counter acidification.”

The negative emissions approach that has received the most attention so far is known as “biomass energy plus carbon capture and storage” (BECCS). This involves growing trees or other bioenergy crops (which absorb carbon dioxide as they grow), burning the biomass as fuel for power plants, capturing the emissions, and burying the concentrated carbon dioxide underground.

“BECCS is expensive and energetically costly. We think this electrochemical process of hydrogen generation provides a more efficient and higher capacity way of generating energy with negative emissions,” Rau said.

He and his coauthors estimated that electrogeochemical methods could, on average, increase energy generation and carbon removal by more than 50 times relative to BECCS, at equivalent or lower cost. He acknowledged that BECCS is farther along in terms of implementation, with some biomass energy plants already in operation. Also, BECCS produces electricity rather than less widely used hydrogen.

“The issues are how to supply enough biomass and the cost and risk associated with putting concentrated carbon dioxide in the ground and hoping it stays there,” Rau said.

The electrogeochemical methods have been demonstrated in the laboratory, but more research is needed to scale them up. The technology would probably be limited to sites on the coast or offshore with access to saltwater, abundant renewable energy, and minerals. Coauthor Heather Willauer at the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory leads the most advanced project of this type, an electrolytic-cation exchange module designed to produce hydrogen and remove carbon dioxide through electrolysis of seawater. Instead of then combining the carbon dioxide and hydrogen to make hydrocarbon fuels (the Navy’s primary interest), the process could be modified to transform and store the carbon dioxide as ocean bicarbonate, thus achieving negative emissions.

“It’s early days in negative emissions technology, and we need to keep an open mind about what options might emerge,” Rau said. “We also need policies that will foster the emergence of these technologies.”

###

The paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0203-0

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/2KjJ2J2

June 26, 2018 at 04:07AM

Heathrow airport: MPs vote in favour of expansion


Climate miserablists wail, but public demand and commercial reality have taken priority. The skies over west London are set to become even busier. Air travel is expanding worldwide and protesters can’t change that, but the location is still controversial for some.

MPs have backed controversial plans to build a third runway at London’s Heathrow airport, reports BBC News.

The government won a key vote in the Commons by 415 votes to 119 – a majority of 296.

Tory MPs were under orders to support the government – but Boris Johnson, a leading opponent of expansion, missed the vote because he was in Afghanistan.

Labour’s official position was to oppose expansion, but its MPs were given a free vote. The SNP abstained.

The vote was welcomed by business group the CBI as “a truly historic decision that will open the doors to a new era in the UK’s global trading relationships”.

But Greenpeace UK said it was ready to join a cross-party group of London councils and the city’s mayor, Sadiq Khan, in a legal challenge against the third runway.

And Friends of the Earth said in a statement: “MPs who backed this climate-wrecking new runway will be harshly judged by history.

“The evidence on the accelerating climate crisis, which is already hitting the world’s most vulnerable people, is overwhelming – and expanding Heathrow will only intensify the misery.”

Environmental activists earlier staged a “lie-in” over Heathrow in Parliament’s central lobby, just metres away from MPs preparing to vote on the proposals.

Police locked-down the area after 12 protesters, who described themselves as from a “pop-up” Vote No Heathrow campaign, sprawled across the floor chanting.

The government has pledged the airport will be built at no cost to the taxpayer, will create 100,000 jobs and will benefit the entire country, through guaranteed internal flights to the rest of the UK.

Continued here.

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

https://ift.tt/2MZUyuB

June 26, 2018 at 04:07AM

Labor asks coal fired generation question today

The PM was asked in question time by Labor re a statement by Paul Broad of Snowy Hydro throwing cold water on coal fired generation. I thought the PM shafted the stupidity implied in the question by pointing out that when Snowy Hydro 2.0 went ahead (great Dog of a thing) then Snowy Hydro would be buying power from coal generators.
Right now coal is providing 67.5% of the Eastern grid power – Gas is 15.4%, Hydro 15.8%, Solar 3.1%, Wind 0.9%, Totals 102.7 I see Paul Broad can speak from both sides of mouth. In April – ‘madness’ to close Liddell then in May Snowy 2.0 can ‘out-compete’ any new coal plants. If anybody can pass on exact text of question and answer please do. AEMO wholesale prices have kept an upward trend this month. AEMONemWatchOpenNemNemLog

via Errors in IPCC climate science

https://ift.tt/2tsmLT0

June 26, 2018 at 03:18AM

Judge throws out climate change lawsuit against ‘Big Oil’


An ambitious attempt to extort vast sums of money from the oil industry, by using the US legal system to bypass normal democratic political process on the pretext of supposed climate problems, has drawn an expensive blank in court.
H/T The GWPF.

San Francisco (AP) — A U.S. judge who held a hearing about climate change that received widespread attention ruled Monday that Congress and the president were best suited to address the contribution of fossil fuels to global warming, throwing out lawsuits that sought to hold big oil companies liable for the Earth’s changing environment.

Noting that the world has also benefited significantly from oil and other fossil fuel, Judge William Alsup said questions about how to balance the “worldwide positives of the energy” against its role in global warming “demand the expertise of our environmental agencies, our diplomats, our Executive, and at least the Senate.”

“The problem deserves a solution on a more vast scale than can be supplied by a district judge or jury in a public nuisance case,” he said.

Alsup’s ruling came in lawsuits brought by San Francisco and neighboring Oakland that accused Chevron, Exxon Mobil, ConocoPhillips, BP and Royal Dutch Shell of long knowing that fossil fuels posed serious risks to the environment, but still promoting them as environmentally responsible.

The lawsuits said the companies created a public nuisance and should pay for sea walls and other infrastructure to protect against the effects of climate change — construction that could cost billions of dollars.

The Oakland city attorney’s offices did not immediately have comment.

Continued here.

See also: RE: THE CALIFORNIA CASE AGAINST BIG OIL — DISMISSED! by The Elephant’s Child

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

https://ift.tt/2tFTEdW

June 26, 2018 at 02:37AM