Nutty Story of the Day #2: whitewashing the ocean

How much lime does it take to treat the whole ocean? Where have we heard this before? Oh yes, dump powdered iron into the ocean. That one didn’t happen yet. Sure, let’s just toss a bunch of lime into the ocean and watch what happens. We’ll just order up a few billion bags of slaked lime and toss ’em into the sea, yeah, that’s the ticket. Note that there is no discussion of what all that lime might do to upset other balances, just so long as we get rid of that nasty CO2. Thank goodness another professor from James Hansen’s Columbia University gives a stamp of approval.

I’d love to see the environmental impact report on this one, especially when they find out that lime does not dissolve immediately or completely in water, but tends to settle. 

By the way, slaked lime + water = whitewash. I’ve mixed a few batches myself recently.

From Physorg: A dash of lime — a new twist that may cut CO2 levels back to pre-industrial levels

Scientists say they have found a workable way of reducing CO2 levels in the atmosphere by adding lime to seawater. And they think it has the potential to dramatically reverse CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere, reports Cath O’Driscoll in SCI’s Chemistry & Industry magazine published today.

Chemistry & Industry

Shell is so impressed with the new approach that it is funding an investigation into its economic feasibility. ‘We think it’s a promising idea,’ says Shell’s Gilles Bertherin, a coordinator on the project. ‘There are potentially huge environmental benefits from addressing climate change – and adding calcium hydroxide to seawater will also mitigate the effects of ocean acidification, so it should have a positive impact on the marine environment.’

Adding lime to seawater increases alkalinity, boosting seawater’s ability to absorb CO2 from air and reducing the tendency to release it back again.

However, the idea, which has been bandied about for years, was thought unworkable because of the expense of obtaining lime from limestone and the amount of CO2 released in the process.

Tim Kruger, a management consultant at London firm Corven is the brains behind the plan to resurrect the lime process. He argues that it could be made workable by locating it in regions that have a combination of low-cost ‘stranded’ energy considered too remote to be economically viable to exploit – like flared natural gas or solar energy in deserts – and that are rich in limestone, making it feasible for calcination to take place on site.

Kruger says: ‘There are many such places – for example, Australia’s Nullarbor Plain would be a prime location for this process, as it has 10 000km3 of limestone and soaks up roughly 20MJ/m2 of solar irradiation every day.’

The process of making lime generates CO2, but adding the lime to seawater absorbs almost twice as much CO2. The overall process is therefore ‘carbon negative’.

‘This process has the potential to reverse the accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere. It would be possible to reduce CO2 to pre-industrial levels,’ Kruger says.

And Professor Klaus Lackner, a researcher in the field from Columbia University, says: ‘The theoretical CO2 balance is roughly right…it is certainly worth thinking through carefully.’

The oceans are already the world’s largest carbon sink, absorbing 2bn tonnes of carbon every year. Increasing absorption ability by just a few percent could dramatically increase CO2 uptake from the atmosphere.

This project is being developed in an open source manner. To find out more, please go to http://www.cquestrate.com , a new website, launched today.

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
82 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 23, 2008 4:34 am

On lime in the oceans from Gristmill :
“If this pans out, this is a huge idea — and potentially a reprieve from climate disaster:”
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/7/20/22140/3847
And they’ve deleted my old password and won’t issue me a new one, so I can’t comment.

macumazahn
July 23, 2008 5:28 pm

The military definition of “folly” is “redoubling your effort when you’ve lost sight of your objective”. For some, it seems, the objective remains forever elusive.

fred
July 24, 2008 12:15 am

Before doing this, one would want some evidence that in the past, reducing CO2 has produced cooling. Otherwise we will just be engaging in enormous pollution of the oceans in a way that will have no effect on temperature.
However, there is no evidence like this. Even if you believe that rising CO2 has produced warming, there is no evidence that cooling has resulted from falling CO2. It is a quite different question and needs independent proof.

July 24, 2008 6:18 am

I think there isn’t enough oil or coal right now to grind up part of Australia, heat up the rocks into lime and dumping that into the ocean. And there is a nice ecosystem there, like snakes and kwalas, and maybe some Dingos.
I think maybe we should leave that ecosystem alone and not think about this anymore. For sure some politician will decide maybe it is worth nuking Australia just to dump the heated rocks into the ocean!
Rather, maybe it would be better if we ground up New Jersey and dump it in the ocean. The oil and chemical companies have made such a mess of part of Jersey, with Thoms River and all, it is probably bette to dump it.
I think humans have been devastating our eco systems and forests since the time of the Romans. They devasted forests to make wooden ships. Lebanese Cedars are practically gone, and they find boats entumbed in Egypt.
I think that by fabricating a lot of solar water pumps, puttting them in areas in the desserts of the world, where it used to be wet, and replanting these forests you might actually absorb that much CO2. Think of the entire Sahara becoming another forest, or Lebanon, or even the Middle East.
And, when water, humity and trees return to the area, guess what, probably no more fighting over resources.
Maybe a better idea then grinding up Autralia, or nuking it or destroying Nj.
Anyone

Jeff Alberts
July 24, 2008 7:53 am

I think that by fabricating a lot of solar water pumps, puttting them in areas in the desserts of the world, where it used to be wet, and replanting these forests you might actually absorb that much CO2. Think of the entire Sahara becoming another forest, or Lebanon, or even the Middle East.

Isn’t that altering the ecosystems? Dry places aren’t “bad” by default. There are plants and animals there that enjoy the dryness, that depend on it. You’re just proposing another silly idea like the posted story.

August 9, 2008 7:44 am

[…] change scares, this is one of the latest. Never mind that the feasibility study on which this hare-brained scheme is based was funded by Shell (as in the Big Oil company Royal Dutch/Shell Group). I find it rather […]

August 12, 2008 6:32 pm

[…] change scares, this is one of the latest. Never mind that the feasibility study on which this hare-brained scheme is based was funded by Shell (as in the Big Oil company Royal Dutch/Shell Group). I find it rather […]