Thanks Dan. I don't fully agree with all you've written, and I'll set out why.
As I said before, I'm worried by SRM. Any failure of the technology could lead to sudden methane excursions. CO2 air-capture does not have this issue. These methane technologies would, in many cases, be available as a standby in the event of future excursions over the next 50 years. Assuming large renewable capacity by this time does not seem unreasonable. I'm not sure I fully understand your concerns regarding logistics of ocean pipes. Could you be more specific about the problem you expect? I think the rankings may indeed be unhelpful, and I'd be interested to hear other views on whether they should be removed, rather than revised. As regards the NOx idea, I don't understand what you mean by LCA. The reference for this approach is: Wild, O.; Prather, M. J.; Akimoto, H. (2001). "Indirect long‐term global radiative cooling from NOxEmissions". *Geophysical Research Letters* *28*: 1719.doi <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier>: 10.1029/2000GL012573 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1029%2F2000GL012573>. <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cite_doi/10.1029.2F2000GL012573&action=edit&editintro=Template:Cite_doi/editintro2> I really hope you can continue to comment on this draft paper, as your feedback is very helpful. Thanks! A On 2 February 2010 12:00, Dan Whaley <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
