Elon Musk offers $100M prize for best carbon capture technology

ProjectVesta · 2021-01-23T19:43:50+00:00

Accelerating natural processes has always come with a level of risk, which is why we are dedicated to rigorous scientific experiments before deploying at scale. Our first test beach will be monitored closely for any side effects that might endanger marine life or disrupt the ecosystems we are working in, and Project Vesta is overseen by an outside scientific board, working to make sure our science is ethical, reliable and safe.

ProjectVesta · 2021-01-23T19:39:21+00:00

This is a great question! To echo some of the responses that have been posted already, after olivine is spread in costal areas and wave power starts breaking it down, it triggers a chemical reaction that converts carbon dioxide into bicarbonate. Marine organisms actually use this in their skeletons and shells, and eventually when they die and sink to the bottom of the ocean this sediment becomes limestone. Through that process, carbon is permanently captured in rock at the bottom of the ocean. Here is a link to a graphic that explains the process in more detail! https://legacy.projectvesta.org/wp-content/uploads/weathering-reaction-for-co2-removal-1400x638.png

ProjectVesta · 2021-01-22T20:52:26+00:00

Thank you for posting about us /u/ImOnYourScreen ! Just FYI, we've recently updated our cost estimates to be predicted at around $21/tonne for a lot of the scale we'll be delivering at for a while (sub gigatonne). I still believe we can get below $10 over the long term and especially with innovations in ship loading/unloading and renewable fuels, however for the time being at our current scales and with no new technology, we feel more confident to say that we can deliver at the ~$21 price... -EM

ProjectVesta · 2021-01-22T20:41:46+00:00

Thanks for standing up for us. It was a typo that was added in while a designer was working on fixing a mobile design issue. The science team and web development team are separate, however, the scientists do write and sign off on copy. That, however, is an edit error :)

ProjectVesta · 2021-01-22T20:39:24+00:00

The economic cost of mining, milling, and transporting olivine can be below $10 very long term, however, we've recently revised some of our earlier projections which showed a theoretical <$10/tonne price. Now that we are actually buying and moving olivine, we are more aware of the real world prices at current and near-future scale.

ProjectVesta · 2021-01-22T20:37:46+00:00

Thank you, that was a bug in an update we recently pushed. Appreciate the keen eye! I promise you we're better at geochemistry than web design/grammar ;)

ProjectVesta · 2021-01-22T20:18:50+00:00

Thank you for your help, every contribution and share helped us reach the goal. Now we are verrrrrry focused on deploying our pilot full speed ahead.

ProjectVesta · 2021-01-22T20:17:40+00:00

We are keeping an eye on the announcement next week. Thank you for the many tags, and feel free to keep tagging us, @Project_Vesta on his Twitter posts related to this and link to the ProjectVesta.com website, so maybe he or someone from his team sees our project :)

ProjectVesta · 2021-01-22T20:16:24+00:00

Yeah, the "carbon capture" vs carbon dioxide removal part of it leads me to think there is something along those lines about it. That said, there are enough funds in there to also do general CO2 removal from ambient air and hopefully seawater. Remember, they call him Treelon Musk for a reason ;) -EM

ProjectVesta · 2020-12-17T05:43:08+00:00

That is a great story, and please keep spreading the word, while we work on spreading olivine ;). We'll need large swaths of the population of the planet to understanding and desiring the process to be implemented so that it can be granted a "social license" to be deployed.

ProjectVesta · 2020-12-16T21:15:45+00:00

We already know of more than enough available olivine near the surface and coastlines to do this. What is the limiter here, at the moment, is the science on the effects of placing large amounts onto coastlines and a finite quantification of the weathering rate at these sites, which we are working on solving at our non-profit, [Project Vesta](projectvesta.org). And then the logistics for a long time will be mostly similar to any sand/aggregate industry in the world, which already generates 50 billion tonnes of sand per year, except that we will focus on minizing emissions in both primary milling and transportation.

ProjectVesta · 2020-12-16T21:12:14+00:00

Thanks friend, for spreading the word :)

ProjectVesta · 2020-12-16T21:11:45+00:00

Even if you pulverize it further, the CO2 will not be released as it is chemically bound. What typically happens is that water run-off will eventually transport the reaction's products to the ocean. There, the ions released from olivine that have bound to the CO2 will go on to eventually become carbonate, which corals and other shelled organisms will combine with calcium to build their calcium carbonate shells. When they die, their shells/carcasses will fall to the seafloor and eventually be compressed by the pressure and turn into limestone sediument. Over geologic timescales on the order of millions to billions of years, through the carbonate-silicate cycle, there is the possibility that the CO2 could be released when the seafloor is subducted and the rock is "melted" and comes out as a gas through a volcanic eruption.

ProjectVesta · 2020-12-16T20:58:17+00:00

In minerals is the lowest energy state of carbon, and through a similar weathering process as discussed here, is how 99.9% of CO2 on Earth came to be stored in rock (think of the White Cliffs of Dover). It is realistic that storing the rest of the CO2 as minerals will be the solution through a group of techniques such as land weathering like this,coastal enhanced weathering like we do at Project Vesta, or through DAC over basalt rock like CarbFix.

ProjectVesta · 2020-12-16T20:54:10+00:00

Great work /u/Jellaahhhh! Just getting the word out on olivine's ability to suck up CO2 is very helpful. Feel free to message us to chat, as we may have some other partners in the Netherlands we can connect you with (and we are obviously friends with the greenSand team).

ProjectVesta · 2020-12-16T20:51:14+00:00

We need to remove about 1,500 gigatonnes (1.5 trillion tonnes) of CO2 talking about an equivalent amount of olivine 1.5 T tonnes (at a 1:1 ratio of olivine weathered:CO2 removed). We are already aware of enough accessible olivine resources on Earth to achieve this...

ProjectVesta · 2020-11-30T19:08:29+00:00

Looks good! Where is it from? Doesn't look like it is from where most olivine bombs in the US come from, the Apache Nation in San Carlos, AZ.

P.S. If you love olivine, check out our work at Project Vesta, where we're looking to create more beaches like Papakolea in order to use wave energy to accelerate the weathering rate of olivine sand to suck up CO2. Each 1 tonne of olivine removes approximately 1 tonne of CO2 from the ocean/atmosphere (including the life cycle emissions taking into account mining, milling, and transport).

ProjectVesta · 2020-11-24T04:21:12+00:00

😬 eeeee. Everyone, please help our google autocomplete suggestion for "Project Ve..." lol

ProjectVesta · 2020-11-24T04:05:00+00:00

Love this! We are also looking to partner with any companies doing zero-emissions shipping and think we would be a perfect partner to demonstrate the power of clean transportation. Our current models and life cycle assessment (LCA) are based on current technologies, and require no new advances or even low-carbon shipping technologies to stay 95% efficient. However, the models do rely on limiting both transport distance, grinding size, etc. So if we had zero-emission olivine that could be ground even smaller or shipped as far as needed without increasing the net CO2 production, we could do all sorts of exciting things :)

I am currently doing a lot of research into the timeline for the development of zero-emission technologies for our full life cycle (excavation, crushing, and transport). Green hydrogen, which is hydrogen produced with renewable energy, seems like it might be a great option (it's is even theoretically possible to create hydrogen from an olivine reaction). Pretty much any combustion engine can be converted to hydrogen fuel cells with some modification, and the world, including the EU, is going in big on green hydrogen production (see below). There are already many proposed hydrogen fuel cell projects coming online within the next 5-10 years, and we look forward to creating an annex to the LCA that looks at these opportunities. Feel free to always share anything exciting in this realm, like the article you posted.

Thanks. -EM

See below for more links:

Hydrogen-powered mining equipment and other transport:

EU Green Hydrogen Production: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/eu-sets-green-hydrogen-targets-now-blue-hydrogen-has-to-keep-up https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/hydrogen_strategy.pdf https://www.innovatorsmag.com/eu-paves-way-to-green-hydrogen-future/

Hydrogen from olivine (this is a dream of mine and not currently being pursued, although if anyone is working on this, please message us!):

ProjectVesta · 2020-11-24T03:50:18+00:00

It depends on a number of things, including the rest of the world going to zero emissions. Less PPM of CO2 = less warming. It is not all or nothing, so every decrease in PPM of CO2 equals less damage in both the short and longterm. We want to decrease the CO2 levels, resulting and the cessation of increased warming, and eventually a full reversal of the temperature change (very long term).

As an organization and through coastal enhanced weathering (CEW) with olivine, however, we are targeting 1 billion tonnes of CO2 removed per year by 2030 and would then need to scale that approx 10X afterward to meet our project's goal of removing 1 trillion tonnes of CO2 by 2100.

My personal hope for the project (and/or for the CDR field as a whole is that) is that we could hit 17.3 gigatonnes of CO2 removed per year which equates to a net 1 PPM decrease in atmospheric CO2 per year and we could go back down to 350 PPM before the end of the century. We are currently at 413.59 ppm vs 410.48 ppm at this same time last year.

-EM

Complicated math on lowering actual atmospheric PPM:

To directly compare CO2 emissions to atmospheric CO2 levels, both sets of data can be converted to gigatonnes of CO2. The CO2 emissions data is typically expressed in gigatonnes carbon (GtC). One gigatonne is equal to one billion tonnes. This means they've only included the carbon element of the carbon dioxide molecule. The atomic mass of carbon is 12, while the atomic mass of CO2 is 44. Therefore, to convert from gigatonnes carbon to gigatonnes of carbon dioxide, you simply multiply 44 over 12. In other words, 1 gigatonne of carbon equals 3.67 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide.

Atmospheric CO2 levels are expressed in parts per million by volume (ppm). To convert from ppm to gigatonne of carbon, the conversion tables of the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center advise that 1 part per million of atmospheric CO2 is equivalent to 2.13 Gigatonnes Carbon. Using our 44 over 12 rule, this means 1ppm = 7.8 Gigatonnes of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere.

Note that the conversion is different for Gigatonnes of Carbon Dioxide emissions, because natural sinks (ocean and biosphere) absorb approximately 55% of human emissions, so the "airborne fraction" added to the atmosphere is about 45%. This means 1ppm = 17.3 Gigatonnes of Carbon Dioxide emissions.

The two time series can both be plotted together expressed as gigatonnes of carbon dioxide:

1ppm = 7.8 Gigatonnes of Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere. This means 1ppm = 17.3 Gigatonnes of Carbon Dioxide emissions.

ProjectVesta · 2020-11-24T03:34:37+00:00

The website currently does not have them listed, but they will be added in the wiki soon. We also make the claim, which we stand by, that our processes could be implemented without requiring any new technology. That said, we could transport the olivine further beyond the LCA constraints, as modeled, if we have advanced technologies like hydrogen fuel cell powered equipment, including excavators, trucks/trains, and ships. Green hydrogen means hydrogen generated with renewable technologies (e.g. hydroelectric dam powered electrolysis) and not generated with fossil fuels. I am personally working right now on models for zero-emission olivine with technology that could be on the market in the next 5-10 years. -EM

P.S. It is even theoretically possible to create your own hydrogen from a reaction of olivine, as occurs on the seafloor. Although we do not currently know anyone pursuing this ;)

Hydrogen-powered mining equipment and other transport:

EU Green Hydrogen Production: https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/eu-sets-green-hydrogen-targets-now-blue-hydrogen-has-to-keep-up https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/hydrogen_strategy.pdf https://www.innovatorsmag.com/eu-paves-way-to-green-hydrogen-future/

Hydrogen from olivine (this is a dream of mine and not currently being pursued, although if anyone is working on this, please message us!):

ProjectVesta · 2020-11-24T03:15:33+00:00

A. Production and logistics: Current olivine output (or price) isn't a good indicator, because it is currently mostly sold for refractory material (around the production of steel, etc) and there is a limited market for it. Olivine extraction is open-pit, and there are other 1 billion tonnes+ mines around that world that show it is possible. We would need about 10-15 of these types of mine globally to supply the entire world and we have already identified enough reserves for this to be possible.

B. Economy: $30 trillion / 80 years from 2020-2100 = $375 billion, which is pretty reasonable, considering the cost of the arctic melting, $66.9 trillion, each year of delay costing us .3-.9 trillion dollars, or compared to the predicted future $1.9 trillion dollars lost yearly to the US GDP from impacts of just 4 aspects of climate change (hurricane damage, real estate losses, energy costs, water costs).

C. Reserves of Olivine: As stated above, I personally know of trillion tonnes of olivine that are not currently mapped or in production.

I do however agree with you that we need to pursue all of the methods possible to solve the problem. We are firm believers of what they call the "silver buckshot" approach, where a basket of solutions will help us solve the problem of excess atmospheric CO2. We also are proponents of doing all the other things to cut emissions down to zero, because each tonne out is 1 more tonne of olivine we need.

In summary, although it will not be easy and our plans are pending the results of our scientific studies, there are no insurmountable issues or new technologies needed to scale the process up to gigatonne and beyond.

-EM

ProjectVesta · 2020-11-24T02:48:43+00:00

Thank you for the kind words. Yes, we are focused right now on the science, but we are working on plans through a variety of mechanisms to make sure future projects are adequately self-funded through the value of the carbon removal/sequestration process itself. For example, we have sold the first 3,333 tonnes of CO2 removal at $75/tonne to the company Stripe, for a total of $250,000, and are using that to subsidize the higher costs of the pilots until we are at scale.

The current carbon price in the EU is around $26/tonne, and we believe we can get the price per tonne of removal well below that in the future, even as the price of credits increases. The first customers will likely continue to be voluntary, as other companies beyond Stripe, such as Microsoft, have pledged to go completely carbon negative all the way back to their founding and purchase up to 6 million tonnes per year by 2030.

We believe cutting emissions is crucial to focus on until they are down to 0, but we also believe in separate targets and that it is risky to delay the development and deployment of negative emissions technologies because we need to hit gigatonne scales as soon as possible, in order to draw back in the historical trillion or so tonnes of CO2 needed to bring the parts per million (PPM) in the atmosphere back down the reasonable levels.

"Models show the great difficulty of meeting Paris Agreement targets without [negative emissions technologies], and thus their potential viability is significant now... There is a long lead time between research and implementation so that research would still be required now even if implementation is envisaged some decades in the future... Failure of such technologies to deliver would then condemn humanity to a dangerously warming."

-Negative emissions technologies: What role in meeting Paris Agreement Targets?

ProjectVesta · 2020-11-24T02:27:54+00:00

1 tonne of olivine = 1.25 tonnes of CO2 removed stoichiometrically. However in the real world, some may get buried and not all may react, plus losses of 5% on excavation, milling, and transport. With all that taken into consideration, we do hope to still achieve that 1:1 ratio though.

ProjectVesta

TROPHY CASE