Geo-engineering With Nuclear Power - Biorock

Geo-engineering with Nuclear Power - Biorock

Geo-engineering to me means man as a species doing something to change the whole world. It is of interest because it has been suggested that perhaps we could use geo-engineering to either mitigate or delay the impacts of climate change caused by our proliferate use of fossil fuels. Proposals range from the simple such as painting all roofs white to reduce the earth's albedo. To the grandiose of deploying large mirrors in space to reduce the the amount of solar radiation reaching the earth.

In this blog I wish to suggest nuclear power be used to undertake geo-engineering. I would like to think the proposal contained in this blog is at the simpler end of the geo-engineering scale. The proposal is to use a nuclear reactor to produce electricity that in turn would power Biorock coral reef growth and restoration. From Wikipedia - "Biorock, also known as Seacrete or Seament, is a trademark name used by Biorock, Inc. to refer to the substance formed by electro-accumulation of minerals dissolved in seawater." The nuclear power plant (NPP) would be the source of the electricity in this process.

In this proposal, a NPP would be located near the coast and provide electricity for the electro-accumulation. The wikipedia article suggests "that one kilowatt hour of electricity will result in the accretion of about 0.4 to 1.5 kg (0.9 to 3.3 lb) of biorock, depending on various parameters such as depth, electrical current, salinity and water temperature." The main components of biorock are mainly calcium carbonate and magnesium hydroxide, again as provided by the Wikipedia article.

The chemical formula for limestone, a major component of biorock is Calcium Carbonate (CaC03). Therefore one mole of CaCO3 weights (40g + 12g + 3*16g) = 100g. I don't know the typical ratio of calcium carbonate and magnesium hydroxide in biorock but let me guess it is 50% calcium carbonate and 50% magnesium hydroxide. Assume that 1 kw-hr of electricity will produce 0.4 kg of biorock which converts to 0.2 kg Calcium Carbonate. Therefore each 0.2 kg of Calcium Carbonate contains 24g of Carbon (Chemical symbol "C").

Now assume we build a NuScale SMR which has a nominal output of 45Mw electric with 90% availabilty and typical carbon lifecycle output of 16g CO2 per kw-hr which converts to 4.4g Carbon per kw-hr (4.4g = 16g *12/44). Therefore each kw-hr of electricity can remove 19.6g (24g - 4.4g = 19.6g) of Carbon from seawater. The NuScale reactor produces 45,000 * 0.9 = 40,500 kw electric over the life of the reactor. Therefore each year a NuScale reactor would remove (40,500 * 24 * 365)kw-hr * 19.6 g per kw-hr = around 7,000,000,000 grams or 7 million kg or 7000 tonnes of carbon per year. It is also expected that the new or repaired reefs will sequester further Calcium Carbonate by biologic means as corals reestablish

Is this worth doing? It turns out that according to Tesco the average British person has a carbon footprint of 15 tonnes of CO2 (around 4 tonnes carbon per year). Therefore, 1 NuScale plant will offset the carbon emissions of 1750 people. On this basis this doesn't seem a very sensible idea. That seems to me to be a large effort to offset the emission of 1750 Brits or 0.003% of the population. This shows just how hard it is to remove carbon from the world once we have dumped it by burning fossil fuels.

On the other hand some low lying topical islands might consider this a reasonable idea if it were to make their communities less vulnerable to storm surges or rising sea levels. The NuScale reactor would allow the production of around, 40,500 * 24 * 365 * 0.4 / 1000 = 141,912 tonnes of biorock per year. The typical density of limestone is around 2.5 tonnes per cubic metre. I will assume that biorock has the same density. Therefore, the NuScale reactor would allow around 56,000 cubic metres of biorock to be produced in a year. If the biorock were grown in a strip 100m wide and 1m thick each year around 560m of coastline could be protected.

The above is a very simple calculation with simple assumptions. I recognise that the above has not considered the carbon input required for the metal used to make the initial structure. It is my understanding that the biorock process can continue for many years as the biorock accumulates. There are probably other carbon inputs that I have missed. On the other hand some of the assumptions above are conservative. Two conservative assumptions are the production of biorock per kw-hr and the availability factor of 0.9 for the NuScale reactor. Both numbers could well be larger.

The next time I write about geo-engineering with nuclear power I will look at biochar.

Have a nice day.

Dome City Blog 5 - Churches, mosques, synagogues & temples

We are coming to the end of the Easter Weekend as I write this. Therefore, it seems appropriate for me to comment on churches, mosques, synagogues and temples within the Dome City.

I believe that on balance religion is a power for good. As a practicing Christian I see the merit in having a set of beliefs and guides for living that encourage me to love my neighbour, to be honest and to be trustworthy.

If a Dome City is going to be a success it will need to be the sort of place people want to live. Having good neighbours is one of the factors that I would list as important to making a place somewhere that I want to live. Religion can play a role in this is 2 ways. The first is as a guide for peaceful living and the second is the way that religion brings people together for religious observations, celebrations and works.

Therefore, I would suggest that space be set aside for churches in the Dome City. In my mind, the obvious place for a Dome City in the UK would be near London. In Britian as a whole according to the Office of National Statistics, based on the 2011 census data, 59.3% stated that they are Christian, 25.1% of the population state that they have no religion, 7.2% did not respond to the question, 4.8% stated they are Muslim, 1.5% stated they were Hindu, 0.8% were Sikh, 0.5% were Jewish, 0.4% were Buddhist and 0.4% were other religions. If this were an accurate reflection of the people who chose to live in the Dome City it is clear to me that around 75% of the population would have a religious affiliation. Of course not all of them would be regular participants in their religious community but a reasonable number would be.

The data for the above paragraph was taken from http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_290510.pdf

In the spirit of interfaith pluralism I would suggest that the churches, mosques, synagogues and temples be placed close to each other, probably on the same level of the Dome City.

In Triumph of the City by Edward Glaeser it talks about a suburb of Houston called Woodlands. One of the things that intrigued me about this suburb is how the developer, George Phydias Mitchell, recognised the importance of religion for promoting social capital. The paragraph that captures this best for me has been extracted and is shown below:

One of the most interesting, and almost urban, aspects of The Woodlands’ management is its focus on social capital. The Woodlands works precisely because it is not a collection of isolated individuals; its social infrastructure has been designed to foster interpersonal connections. In 1975, Mitchell hired a Wharton-trained Lutheran minister to run The Woodlands Religious Community Incorporated, now called Interfaith, which was meant to “plan the religious community and all the human services in this new town.” The minister bought a motor scooter and followed moving vans , meeting new residents as they arrived. Interfaith made sure that The Woodlands provided appropriate space for social, particularly religious, activities. Because nothing sours an area like religiously motivated hatred, Interfaith makes sure that religious messages are kept positive. In the aftermath of the 9/ 11 attacks, Interfaith managed to get rabbis to pray for Palestinians and Islamic leaders to pray for Jews.

Glaeser, Edward (2011-03-18). Triumph of the City: How Our Greatest Invention Makes Us Richer, Smarter, Greener, Healthier and Happier (pp. 181-182). Macmillan Publishers UK. Kindle Edition.

Aside - Those interested in energy matters like I am will recognise the name "George Phydias Mitchell", this is the man credited with developing the techniques to extract natural gas from tight shales using hydraulic fracturing (fracking). - end aside

I would hope that a UK Dome City would encourage the same sort of thing taking into account the differences between American and British religious views and practices.

Joe Heffernan 6-April-2015

Thoughts on our visit to Prague

Helen and I returned from our holiday in Prague last night. We had a good time, I’ve returned feeling relaxed and somewhat recharged.

I liked Prague a lot and I was thinking about what makes it such a nice city (for tourists like us).

In no particular order:

1 - Friendly and honest people. 2- A great city centre for walking around. 3 - Good public transport. 4 - Green space easily accessible from the city centre. 5 - Good affordability. 6 - A compact city centre with plenty of bars, pubs and Restaurants.

I will discuss this more in my future blogs.

0 notes View Post

jbheffernan

6 years ago

21 students and staff from Ningbo University and Changchun Institute of Technology in China visited #whitelee today. They are at a summer school at #universityofthewestofscotland (at Whitelee Windfarm)

Geo-engineering With Nuclear Power - Biorock