Submitted on April 2nd, 2009 by Ken Caldeira (not verified)
Folks,
As I have said before, I am not asking Calera to tell us proprietary process information. We can treat their process as a black box, but they at least need to answer the question:
What are the inputs to and outputs from their proposed process, including quantitative information that would allow independent evaluation of the "in-principle" thermodynamic and mass-balance characteristics of their proposed process?
How can they represent themselves as having an effective carbon storage technology if they will not even be forthcoming with this basic information? I am not asking for secrets of what goes on inside their black box. I just want to know what goes into the box and what comes out. Every other related proposed process is upfront and forthcoming about this basic level of information (cf. House et al, Lackner, Keith, Rau et al., etc).
I am completely unconcerned about infringement of the Rau and Caldeira patent by Calera, especially since Calera's supposed process makes no sense to me. But just to clear up any impression that I am asking Calera to come clean in an effort to gain personally, in the unlikely event that that patent should ever make any money, I have publicly stated that I will donate 100% of my share of the proceeds to non-profit charities and NGOs.
My goal is simply to cut down on the level of misinformation. I would love nothing more than for me to be wrong and for Calera to have figured out a process that will make a major contribution to solving the carbon climate problem. If Calera's process is so wonderful and above board, why won't they be forthcoming with the basic information needed to evaluate whether their proposed process makes any sense "in principle"? What are they hiding?
Global premier sponsors include
Lead sponsors/partners include
All sponsors | All partners
What with Calera, asks Caldeira
Submitted on April 2nd, 2009 by Ken Caldeira (not verified)Folks,
As I have said before, I am not asking Calera to tell us proprietary process information. We can treat their process as a black box, but they at least need to answer the question:
What are the inputs to and outputs from their proposed process, including quantitative information that would allow independent evaluation of the "in-principle" thermodynamic and mass-balance characteristics of their proposed process?
How can they represent themselves as having an effective carbon storage technology if they will not even be forthcoming with this basic information? I am not asking for secrets of what goes on inside their black box. I just want to know what goes into the box and what comes out. Every other related proposed process is upfront and forthcoming about this basic level of information (cf. House et al, Lackner, Keith, Rau et al., etc).
I am completely unconcerned about infringement of the Rau and Caldeira patent by Calera, especially since Calera's supposed process makes no sense to me. But just to clear up any impression that I am asking Calera to come clean in an effort to gain personally, in the unlikely event that that patent should ever make any money, I have publicly stated that I will donate 100% of my share of the proceeds to non-profit charities and NGOs.
My goal is simply to cut down on the level of misinformation. I would love nothing more than for me to be wrong and for Calera to have figured out a process that will make a major contribution to solving the carbon climate problem. If Calera's process is so wonderful and above board, why won't they be forthcoming with the basic information needed to evaluate whether their proposed process makes any sense "in principle"? What are they hiding?
Best,
Ken Caldeira