I think pricing the cost of solutions based on the future assumption of cheap and abundant renewable energy is a little flip. The decisions needed to be made are presumably in the world of today. The cost of solutions should be based on today's world. Otherwise, why bother doing the analysis now-- just put it off twenty years when everything we know will be completely different anyway.
Infrastructure is more than capital cost. For ocean pipes, it creates a logistical problem that cannot easily be overcome by throwing money or resources at it. For other solutions, the considerations are different. There are direct costs (materials and fabrication), operating costs (energy and reagents), time, complexity and serviceability, aesthetics, etc. I think you should remove the ranking and simply provide a narrative. I think the net appraisal for each one has to be done more thoughtfully with attention to its specifics. Your comment that SRM gets a thumbs down because it stores carbon in its current "unstable and dangerous methane form" got a laugh out of me. Are you frigging kidding? Do we have a choice? If we begin to seriously tip towards its release, no amount of bubble wizardry, incendiary bombs or fancy chemistry will ever be enough. The NOx idea? You're going to have to lead me through this.... what is the LCA of this concept? Where do the inputs and outputs come from. Whenever anyone suggests we're going to create a giant mechanical factory to re-structure global atmospheric chemistry, I somehow find myself oddly skeptical. D On Tue, Feb 2, 2010 at 1:55 AM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]>wrote: > Thanks Dan, > > Thanks for your helpful comments. I reattach the paper for convenience. > > I'd welcome your input on a possible new method for evaluation. One of the > most obvious problems is that there's no weighting system as such (or rather > that all factors are weighted equally). Maybe it would be better to remove > the weighting? Stephen Salter also criticised the ranking system, so maybe > it's time to chuck it out entirely, and replace with simple comments without > attempting to quantify them. > > FYI bubble capture doesn't necessitate capture pipework. The bubble > diffusers should work well in principle, and the biggest potential problem > is that they'll get blocked up with algae or detritus. I don't see them as > being particularly disruptive to the lake ecosystem, any more than an old > log would be. They can just sit there quietly converting big bubbles to > little bubbles, or directly to dissolved gas. There would be a device for > capturing each concentrated streams of bubbles, which only emanate for > certain parts of the lake or sea, and it's certainly not the case that every > bubble would have its own funnel. FYI I envisage the funnels being approx > 0.5m - 4m diameter, depending on their position and the ebulliation they're > dealing with. > > I agree that most systems would require significant infrastructure. For > this reason, one of my personal favourites is the NOx idea, as it > essentially 'hunts' the methane. It didn't come out too well on the > scoring, though. I'd welcome your comments as to whether that's a failure > of the ranking system or the idea. > > Maybe the costs should be re-labelled capital cost and the energy cost > re-labelled operating cost? That might be more helpful. We know that > renewable energy is available on a large scale, so future energy > availability shouldn't be a major limitation. > > May I ask for further input on how you would rank or further classify the > environmental problems? Perhaps categories including ecosystem, aesthetic, > risk factors, human impact, etc could be used? This gets very complex, > though, and assessing each idea consistently and in detail becomes very > difficult. To address your specific point, munitions are benign as they are > air-burst, whereas electric ignition is ground burst and potentially harmful > to the local environment. Toasted fox, anyone? :-) > > Where SRM falls down is that it's only a sticking-plaster. If I was > comparing carbon air-capture, I would have ranked it far higher. If we use > SRM to stabilise methane, we'll use it indefinitely. It only stores the > carbon in it's existing unstable and dangerous methane form, and even a > short disruption to its availability could trigger a massive methane > release. > > I'd expect coal mine methane remediation to come out high. Here's a rough > assessment: > > Cost 1 - concentrated sources enables treatment with minimal plant. > Energy 1 - power generation possible > Efficacy 1 - proven effective > Development 1 - already available and installed > Environmental 1 - no major impacts > CCS 0 - semi-diffuse stream > Total 5 - highest score of all. > > Please feel free to send in any further comments. > > Thanks! > > A > > On 1 February 2010 22:08, Dan Whaley <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I give you big points for even trying to put together a treatment of this >> issue, but really take an issue with much of the analysis. >> >> One of the biggest problems I have with many solutions is the requirement >> for permanent infrastructure at global scale... i.e. millions of air capture >> devices, or ocean pipes, or tens of thousands of miles of additional CO2 >> capture pipeline, each of which need to be built, installed, >> serviced--causing impacts on land use, driving significant cost, in addition >> to the aesthetics implications (including the potential for it just to end >> up as abandoned junk). Perhaps there are strong arguments as to why for >> specific techniques, the infrastructure makes sense or is justified based on >> efficacy-- but if you're ranking ideas, somehow this logic needs to come out >> in a methodology which is laid out for all to see and consider. Ocean >> pipes for instance (to pick on one most of us would agree about) are frankly >> just not practical... and there should be a way to capture the analysis of >> why this is so. I'm not sure the simplistic ranking systems out there so >> far have done a very good job at this. >> >> For instance, you rank "bubble capture" as a 4--this is your highest >> score. It should be the standout idea. But doesn't this imply a massive >> net of pipes across the tundra (or the continental shelf) to catch the >> millions of places where methane bubbles-- or might in the future? A pipe >> (or funnel if you like) for every bubble essentially. Perhaps I misread >> you. Is this actually a practical concept? How would you defend this? >> >> It seems like there should be a category for "large scale, permanent >> infrastructure required" or "infrastructure per ton avoided" (different than >> cost-- but probably closely linked) and perhaps one for "aesthetics" as >> well. Perhaps I am biased, but in my opinion these should be not only >> included, but over-weighted. >> >> Also, the category "environmental" seems too loose. What exactly are >> "environmental impacts" and how does one judge the severity of them? I see >> no rhyme or reason here... Mining clathrates, which would be quite >> disruptive to the benthic environment rates a 0, adding methylotrophs... >> i.e. the widespread introduction of non-native microorganisms ranks even >> better, as a 1?? (Of all the historical interventions, the ones that have >> backfired the worst have involved the introduction of new organisms). >> Electrical ignition by sparking is a 0, but using air-burst incendiary >> munitions at altitude gets a favorable 1? What about the birds? >> >> Also.... SRM for methane is a "pre-emptive" strategy, no? shouldn't it be >> placed with the rest of them, and judged by its practical ability to avoid >> future methane emissions relative to other techniques? >> >> On your scale SRM geoengineering gets a -2... but to me, this general >> approach (and one needs to specify which technique by the way) clearly has >> emerged as one of the only practical, large scale, fast acting techniques, >> which requires no built environment, no large scale infrastructure. >> Clearly many questions remain-- some, perhaps Alan, would argue against >> it--but in terms of a rough ranking, it should come out near the top. You >> give it a -1 for CCS... but the "net" prevention of carbon is what should be >> measured. While SRM doesn't address methane specifically, it still probably >> deserves to outrank nearly everything else in terms of its ability to >> pre-empt. >> >> 100 years from now, what will have avoided more methane: keeping the >> arctic colder, or piping every bubble? >> >> I would be interested to see where Coal Mine Methane mitigation would fit >> in your chart... technically, most would probably argue that it's emissions >> reduction, not "capture from nature" and thus not geoengineering... but >> still, it should probably be off the richter scale in any measure of cost, >> practicality, speed to deploy, infrastructure required per ton avoided, >> aesthetic impact and likely zero impacts. It might be a good ranking test. >> >> I appreciate your attempt to put your hands around this-- but (IMHO of >> course) the ranking really needs some work. If it helps, I felt the same >> about the Royal Society effort... :) >> >> Maybe a paragraph on each ranking category explaining your >> methodology/philosophy would be appropriate. >> >> Thanks for listening, >> >> Dan >> >> >> On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 12:57 AM, Andrew Lockley < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Should anyone wish to use, test or work up proposals in the attached >>> paper for this grant cycle, they are more than welcome to do so. It was >>> submitted yesterday to ASL. >>> >>> I have applied to present it in Delhi, but have unfortunately missed the >>> deadline, so acceptance is unlikely. >>> >>> Corrections and comments on the paper are welcome. >>> >>> A >>> >>> 2010/1/31 Ken Caldeira <[email protected]> >>> >>> My guess is that they are not thinking about capture of methane from air, >>>> but if someone has a good idea ... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ******************************************************************************************************** >>>> >>>> >>>> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE >>>> January 8, 2010 >>>> >>>> EPA Requests Grant Applications to Fight Climate Change >>>> >>>> WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today >>>> announced it is making up to $5 million in grants available to U.S. >>>> and international organizations to fund innovative, international >>>> methane reduction and use projects that cut global climate pollution. >>>> The grants will be issued through the Methane to Markets Partnership, >>>> a public-private partnership that reduces greenhouse gas (GHG) >>>> pollution by promoting the cost-effective, near-term recovery and use >>>> of methane, a GHG that is more than 20 times more potent than carbon >>>> dioxide. >>>> >>>> Methane capture and use projects supported by the partnership through >>>> grants and other means are currently reducing emissions by more than >>>> 27.3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent annually – >>>> equivalent to the annual emissions from 5 million passenger vehicles. >>>> >>>> Non-profit or government organizations in any country may apply for >>>> grant funding, but projects should take place in the following >>>> Methane to Markets Partner countries: Argentina, Brazil, Chile, >>>> China, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Georgia, India, >>>> Kazakhstan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Mongolia, Nigeria, Pakistan, >>>> Philippines, Poland, Russia, Thailand, Ukraine, and Vietnam. If an >>>> organization wishes to submit an application for a project in a >>>> developing country or a country with an economy in transition that is >>>> not listed above, the country must first apply to the Methane to >>>> Markets Partnership before the project can be considered for funding. >>>> >>>> Grant proposals should support feasibility studies, technology >>>> transfer, deployment of technology, training, methane emissions >>>> inventories, and other activities that promote methane capture and >>>> use. The agency expects to award up to 35 cooperative assistance >>>> agreements ranging from approximately $100,000 to $750,000. >>>> >>>> Proposals are due by April 15, 2010, at 1:00 p.m. EST. EPA estimates >>>> that awards would be made at the end of 2010. >>>> >>>> Since the launch of the partnership in 2004, EPA has provided almost >>>> $13 million for nearly 70 grants to build capacity and promote >>>> international capture and use of methane. This work will be >>>> highlighted in 2010 when EPA, the Government of India and the >>>> Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry host the 2nd >>>> Methane to Markets Partnership Expo on March 2-5, 2010 in Delhi, >>>> India. The expo will bring together approximately 1,000 partners and >>>> methane experts from around the world to showcase project >>>> opportunities and technologies related to the capture and use of >>>> methane. >>>> >>>> >>>> More grant information: >>>> http://www.epa.gov/methanetomarkets/grants.htm >>>> >>>> R006 >>>> >>>> CONTACT: >>>> Dave Ryan (News Media Only) >>>> [email protected] >>>> 202-564-7827 >>>> 202-564-4355 >>>> Technical grants questions: Henry Ferland, 202-343-9330 >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Groups "geoengineering" group. >>>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>> [email protected]<geoengineering%[email protected]> >>>> . >>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "geoengineering" group. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> [email protected]<geoengineering%[email protected]> >>> . >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >>> >> >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
