From the Institute of Physics
Researchers analyse ‘rock dissolving’ method of geoengineering
The benefits and side effects of dissolving particles in our ocean’s surfaces to increase the marine uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2), and therefore reduce the excess amount of it in the atmosphere, have been analysed in a new study published today.
The study, published today, 22 January, in IOP Publishing’s journal Environmental Research Letters, assesses the impact of dissolving the naturally occurring mineral olivine and calculates how effective this approach would be in reducing atmospheric CO2.
The researchers, from the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Bremerhaven, Germany, calculate that if three gigatonnes of olivine were deposited into the oceans each year, it could compensate for only around nine per cent of present day anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
This long discussed ‘quick fix’ method of geoengineering is not without environmental drawbacks; the particles would have to be ground down to very small sizes (around one micrometre) in order to be effective. The grinding process would consume energy and therefore emit varying amounts of CO2, depending on the sort of power plants used to provide the energy.
Lead author of the study Peter Köhler said: “Our literature-based estimates on the energy costs of grinding olivine to such a small size suggest that with present day technology, around 30 per cent of the CO2 taken out of the atmosphere and absorbed by the oceans would be re-emitted by the grinding process.”
The researchers used a computer model to assess the impact of six different olivine dissolution scenarios. Olivine is an abundant magnesium-silicate found beneath the Earth’s surface that weathers quickly when exposed to water and air – in its natural environment it is dissolved by carbonic acid which is formed from CO2 out of the atmosphere and rain water.
If olivine is distributed onto the ocean’s surface, it begins to dissolve and subsequently increases the alkalinity of the water. This raises the uptake capacity of the ocean for CO2, which is taken up via gas exchange from the atmosphere.
According to the study, 92 per cent of the CO2 taken up by the oceans would be caused by changes in the chemical make-up of the water, whilst the remaining uptake would be down to changes in marine life through a process known as ocean fertilisation.
Ocean fertilisation involves providing phytoplankton with essential nutrients to encourage its growth. The increased numbers of phytoplankton use CO2 to grow, and then when it dies it sinks to the ocean floor taking the CO2 with it.
“In our study we only examined the effects of silicate in olivine. Silicate is a limiting nutrient for diatoms – a specific class of phytoplankton. We simulated with our model that the added input of silicate would shift the species composition within phytoplankton towards diatoms.
“It is likely that iron and other trace metals will also impact marine life if olivine is used on a large scale. Therefore, this approach can also be considered as an ocean fertilisation experiment and these impacts should be taken into consideration when assessing the pros and cons of olivine dissolution,” continued Köhler.
The researchers also investigated whether the deposition of olivine could counteract the problem of ocean acidification, which continues to have a profound effect on marine life. They calculate that about 40 gigatonnes of olivine would need to be dissolved annually to fully counteract today’s anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
“If this method of geoengineering was deployed, we would need an industry the size of the present day coal industry to obtain the necessary amounts of olivine. To distribute this, we estimate that 100 dedicated large ships with a commitment to distribute one gigatonne of olivine per year would be needed.
“Taking all our conclusions together – mainly the energy costs of the processing line and the projected potential impact on marine biology – we assess this approach as rather inefficient. It certainly is not a simple solution against the global warming problem.” said Köhler.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
bury a climate-change alarmist and plant a tree… once that’s done, we can talk.
Whatever happened to the good old days when scientific theories were (dis)proven by experiment!
And if this tips us into an ice age what then?
In another 20 years they are going to be doing whatever they can to get more CO2 into the atmosphere, I think. It’s going to get a little chilly.
I can’t wait ’til the “anti-strip-mining” people hear about this!!!!
Somebody got paid to produce that garbage.???
Dumping olivine minerals into water causes exothermal chemical reactions! This results in an increase of the water temperature, even if slight. Increased water temperature causes a release of CO2. Is this smart? To me it seems contraproductive …
As olivine materials are minerals, this will act as fertalizers on the biosphere. Is this smart, as in most cases simular attempt to dump (foreigin) stuff into the water has disturbed the marine life in affected area (lime excepted)?
The entire operation to be run by Murphy, and governed by the LAW of Unintended Consequences…
40 gigatonnes would be 40 billion metric tonnes (=2,200lbs each). The US consumed appx 1.085 billion short tons (=2,000lbs) in 2011 – or appx 0.984 billion metric tonnes.
This is simply ridiculous based on scope and scale let alone the massive unknowns this kind of ridiculous geo-engineering might have on our hugely important oceans.
Even if I had a choice of 20 feet of sea level increase vs this unknown geo-engineering I would not hesitate to choose the sea level rise. At least it is a known, certain effect.
Sir: My comment was to read “I can’t wait ’til. It wasn’t a good comment.
so forget it Thank you. sorry. Alfred
Reply: Seemed like a nice comment to me… so I fixed it for you. -ModE]
Oh FFS! If anyone wanted proof that Idiots are being freely given degrees AND grant money – this is it!
Maybe they could mine it with manpower using all those who have lost their jobs because of the green revolution, make windmills with grinders instead of alternators and sail boats made from renewable trees to take it to sea.
Sounds like a good idea to me,
HA HA
James Bull
just as an aside – you know what I find funny? – it’s that these eco-greeny loons will support this – whilst screaming blue murder at the thought of GM food – ‘cos of course, ocean fertilisation doesn’t affect the eco-system at all, does it?
Of course the power for the grinding must only come from wind turbines. That should slow them down a bit.
So is it worth buying shares in Olivine mining ?
What happened to – cold water disolves CO2 – hot water releases CO2
Olivine dust ground and dispersed by giant fossil fuelled machines! A superlative suggestion, sir, with just two minor flaws. One, we don’t have any AGW. And two, we don’t have any AGW. Now I realise that technically speaking that’s only one flaw, but I thought that it was such a big one that it was worth mentioning twice…. (Apologies to Kryten)
The main problem with the AGW hypothesis is of course that it is pseudo scientific nonsense. In answer to jgmccabe who commented above, there are no empirical experiments that prove AGW. Not one. But there are several easy experiments you can conduct in the lab that can totally disprove the worst scientific blunder in the history of human scientific endeavour
1. DWIR cannot slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool. That rules out 71% of the earth’s surface from being affected by “back radiation” from CO2. The empirical experiment to check this is easy.
2. Ignore gravity like the AGW believers do and treat the atmosphere as a single mathematical layer or “body” as AGW believers do. The answer is still that CO2 cools our atmosphere. Why? Because CO2s ability to warm the atmosphere by intercepting outgoing IR is a inverse logarithmic function of its concentration in the atmosphere. However CO2s ability to radiate to space the energy the atmosphere has acquired from conduction and the release of latent heat is a linear function of its concentration in the atmosphere. Even failing to consider gravity, CO2 will become a coolant after around 50ppm. This too can be shown by empirical experiment.
3. Model gravity and the pressure gradient correctly and you will find that radiative gases are vital for continued convective circulation in the troposphere. Where do 99.9% of the radiative gases in our atmosphere exist? Below the tropopause. Where does the lapse rate reverse? Above the tropopause. Where does all strong vertical convective circulation occur? Below the tropopause. Without energy loss to space above the altitude of energy input convective circulation will stall and our atmosphere will heat. When you model the atmosphere with depth and a pressure gradient, the net effect of radiative gases is cooling at all concentrations above 0ppm. The critical importance of emitting IR to space above the altitude of energy input into the atmosphere can also be demonstrated by empirical experiment.
Where are the empirical experiments that prove AGW? Nowhere, that’s where.
AGW is physically impossible. Adding radiative gases to the atmosphere will not reduce the radiative cooling ability of the atmosphere.
If you find those currently defending AGW unconvincing, just think how ridiculous the last AGW believers are going to get in the very near future. These are the last days of the hoax. Soon only the most fervent and orally foaming believers will be left. Those that have any chance of saving career or reputation are already trying to slink and weasel away, foolishly hoping for an escape to “Black Carbon”, “Biocrisis” or “Sustainability”. Those that realise they can’t escape the permanent record of the Internet are going nuts. Fools like Gleick, Lewandowsky and Mann are now so far around the bend they can no longer see daylight.
When the dust begins to settle on this most sorry episode in science and politics, those involved will come to understand what the phrase “Sceptics will never forgive and the Internet will never forget” actually means. The pseudo scientists? The compliant MSM? The “left” of politics? The UN kleptocrats? The environmental activists? All the “fellow travellers” and “useful idiots” whom the Internet has tied to the mast of SS AGW? These fools are going to be wincing and biting their fist so hard that that they will find that they are missing fingers and that they’ve swallowed their eyes.
Considering the prevalence of olivine and serpentine (morphed olivine) in California (serpentine is the state mineral), I would guess such a “charge” happens every time there is a rainy season on the west coast of the US.
Dear ModE,
I Note that wordpress has “helpfully” deleted my paragraph spacing. If You do chose to post my previous comment I would greatly appreciate if you could restore paragraph spacing. You may add a “/rant” qualifier at you discretion 😉
[Reply: Added spaces. Hope they are as you like them. -ModE ]
The benefits and side effects of dissolving particles in our ocean’s surfaces to increase the marine uptake of carbon dioxide (CO2), and therefore reduce the excess amount of it in the atmosphere, have been analysed in a new study published today.
Whoa! First they have to tell me what is the correct amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Then we can talk about whether to increase or decrease the amount. They are assuming right out the gate that a reduction would be a good thing.
Peak Olivine.
And just where would you mine all this olivine? There are just a few small olivine mines in the world today.
Olivine is often associated with nickel, which can be very toxic.
“It certainly is not a simple solution against the global warming problem.” – This sentence obviously needs correcting:
“It certainly is not a simple solution against the non-problem of global warming.” There, that’s better.
Verdict: Just another instance of tax dollars being well spent on behalf of the Global Warming Industry.
3 gigatons??? What on earth are they going to use to mine, grind, transport and distribute this load? Shovels and wheelbarrows? Asinine.
Magnesium silicate. Ground up into 1 micrometer powder. Isn’t that known sometimes as white asbestos?
What is ironic is that this comes from the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research. Wegener came up with the idea for continental drift, which finally became plate tectonics. He was derided for his ideas, the ‘science was settled’ orthodicy was that the continents did not move. So much so that in the US it was not taught in Geology schools until the 1960s when the physical evidence for drift became overwhelming, and the keepers of the orthodoxy either were dead or finally admitted defeat.
Parallels for the ‘science is settled’ CAGW?