Does the use of Olivine for CO2 reduction still require a lot of basic research?
No, in principle all laboratory research is finished. The project is in a phase of experiments and scaling to practical use. In the Netherlands several initiatives have already found practical application.
Is the speed of weathering really a problem?
It is wise to select the best climates for weathering, and the best conditions, but contrary to theoretical models based on the extrapolation of abiotic laboratory experiments, observations in the real world show that the speed of weathering is fast enough to provide a practical solution.
Is there enough exploitable olivine to help the world?
There is, even close to the Earth’s surface more than thousand time more olivine than there will be ever necessary to counteract the rise of CO2 levels, for example see:
What are the possible environmental risks caused by spreading olivine?
Minimal, because the olivine option is based on a natural process that has gone on for the whole of geological history. Some points need consideration: whereas for most ecologies a restoration of low pH values is positive (this is normally done by liming, but that doesn’t have the additional benefit of CO2 capture), there are specific biotopes that require low pH values. These should not be strewn with olivine.
Why is the olivine initiative not yet realized?
This is not quite correct. Several project are in a phase of implementation (roof covering of office buildings and houses with olivine, marketing of potting soil enriched with olivine, A first olivine mine with the specific purpose of using olivine for CO2 sequestration has just been opened in Oman, and several others)
Does it make sense to remove CO2 from the atmosphere and or from the ocean in countries with a relative low emission?
The climate is a well-mixed reservoir on the scale of months, so for the climate it makes no difference where the CO2 is removed.
Is there a real business case for the use of olivine?
Hoe does the cost of the olivine initiative compared with alternatives?
Yes, there have been two independent lca-studies of the complete olivine option (mining, milling, transport and spreading). One study resulted in an energy cost (expressed in CO2 equivalent) of 4% CO2 expenditure. A new one indicated at 3.5% of the CO2 that is ultimately captured. This is in clear contrast to the CO2 cost of CCS, which is around 29%.
What are the objectives of the Foundation?
What are the assets of the Foundation?
The only tangible asset is knowledge, patenting of most of our ideas seems not possible. There are no intangible assets such as funds, sponsors or subsidies. The foundation is registered as ANBI for income tax deduction possibilities in the Netherlands.
Is there an international focus?
Yes, we have good contacts e.g. in Greece, Oman, Spain, India, South Africa and Brazil. Cooperation with Wageningen University strengthens these links also to other interested countries.
Does the Dutch government participate?
Not yet, there is no interest in the olivine alternative; government strategy and funding are focussed on CCS (underground storage of CO2), but the attitude is now changing. An “Olivine Assessment” is recently initiated bij the “Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Milieu”.
The outcome is still not known (2016)
The Dutch “Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving” (PBL) mentions Olivine as a realistic option in coastal waters (2018)