Hi, Thanks for your further comments. I'd like to address each issue briefly, but first I'd like to say that I've withdrawn my rubbish rankings from the paper as everyone hated them, including me.
1,2. I support SRM, but I suggest that we can't rely exclusively on a technology that may be withdrawn at any time. We need a backup plan for methane. 3. If we can mine unstable methane instead of stable coal, use it for power, (and then bung the CO2 in a hole) then Bravo! Let's just hope it works.... 4. A relatively small number of pipes at strategic locations would be able to deal with local methane excursions. It's not an approach which needs global deployment. Think scalpel, not axe. The idea is to downwell oxygen-rich, methane-poor water, together with some nutrients, down to a useful depth. In locations such as the anoxic layers of the Black sea, this could be v. useful. 5. I agree LCA would be necessary - and am familiar with the concept (just not the acronym :-) ) Thanks again A On 4 February 2010 18:58, Dan Whaley <[email protected]> wrote: > 1- On the "sudden failure" charge against SRM: Ken uses the dialysis > analogy... which is reasonable on the first order. i.e. clearly just > because a mitigation might fail, or access to the mitigation might > cease, doesn't mean one shouldn't pursue it in the first place. > Possibly the second order charge, i.e. that the "whiplash" effect > might be worse than doing nothing, is legitimate, but probably needs > thoughtful analysis. And is the whiplash of something failing in one > year, worse than the whiplash we're already encountering over 50 > years. Also-- the earth experiences "whiplash" every time a volcano > goes off, and then again when the particles come out of the > atmosphere. So clearly whiplash itself isn't going to kill us. If a > volcano goes off while we're in active mitigation, then we suspend > operations partially or completely, etc.. > > 2- Besides, I just don't see the technology "failing". i.e. in that > it might work effectively for a period of time and then somehow we > might not be able to perform it. The only case i can see this > likelihood is in the event that our world returns to some kind of > feudal state-- i.e. collapse. (a reasonably high probability, but in > which case we've all got bigger problems.) But if we're able to > succeed with some method of delivery, such that it "works" (i.e. > global temperatures begin to fall), isn't it likely that we'd be able > to continue what amounts to a pretty low-tech operation into the > future? What is the imagined scenario in which we would not? This is > stipulated, but I don't think defensible. In the movie "Contact" one > unit fails, but we built a second one. It seems reasonable to me that > we would have duplicate or triplicate systems, or even a fully > distributed infrastructure if this was indeed essential for humanity. > > 3- Your alternative suggestion seems to be, let the methane be > released, we'll capture it. I think this is naive, and essentially > impossible. What is going to be your % effectiveness at capturing > what amounts to trillions of tons of CO2 leaking out from every pore > of the previously frozen north? Not 100%, and probably not even 10%. > But even if by benefit of some extraordinary and (currently unknown > technique) you're somehow 80% effective, we're still pushed way into > the red. > > 4- Ocean pipes. Assuming the basic technology works-- i.e. that you > can tune the length of the tube to select for more nutrient than the > CO2 you're also bringing up from depth, which the evidence says you > probably can't-- you would still need 10s of thousands--probably > more-- of these units deployed globally. These would either drift > lagrangian stye-- in which case they would tend to accumulate, and > would need to be redeployed-- or as phil kithil suggests, they would > need to be moored and guy-wired together under the sea such that they > maintain adequate distance from each other. This is such a far- > fetched notion as to be essentially preposterous. How would fishing > operations happen with so many fixed devices, what about fouling, > serviceability? What about current shear across the depth of them, > etc etc. Dave Karl and Ricardo Letelier's recent tests were > admirable but revealed a host of issues-- and they were really only > interested in their ability to produce localized phytoplankton blooms > which could be more easily studied for their biological properties. > So, not only does the technology most likely fail on a net carbon > reduction basis, but it most likely fails on a practical and > operational basis as well-- not to mention the unknown effects of > influencing ocean mixing and temperature on that scale. I have yet to > see any thoughtful engineering proposals to the contrary. Just a lot > of arm waving. > > 5- LCA means Life Cycle Assessment or Analysis. Look it up. It's > become quite sophisticated, with open source input-output tables for > all kinds of manufactured goods and materials available from many > places. It is part of the design requirement for any mature carbon > technology, eg. under the most basic UNFCCC methodological > submission. Simply, it means you have to account for the energy, > carbon, water and overall cost etc. from the full lifecycle process of > all materials, fabrication, installation, operation, servicing, > consumables, water, carbon, and eventual recycling, etc. in order to > demonstrate that what you're doing is any better than the baseline > case (i.e. doing nothing). > > Cheers, > > Dan > > > On Feb 3, 1:11 am, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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/10.1029.2.. > .> > > > > 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. > > > > ... > > > > read more » > > -- > 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.
