Re: [geo] Re: calling all CDRersBarrasso and Enzi (was a sponsor in a previous year) are both WY senators, so the obvious goal is to allow coal to continue to be used, while CO2 is reduced from other sources and from ambient air. The 17% figure is a worst case for coal, 10% is much closer to emissions from coal burning boilers. CCS from 10% gas streams may be developed before CDR due to the energy requirements, but implementation may take much longer if plants using pure O2 are developed, since they would have to replace existing ones, so going after these other sources that are not part of the present DOE portfolio is in my opinion relevant and not picking winners. However, depending on a contest to solve the problems without including them in the main DOE R&D is shortsighted. I see no relevance for biochar since nature already captured the carbon dioxide.
I also see no hope for this legislation for several reasons. Sen. Bingaman, NM (also a coal and natural gas state) is retiring. The successful attempt by Republicans to damage the climate monitoring and reporting parts of EPA and NOAA and the president's willingness to go along with it suggest there is little appetite in this Congress for any movement on climate change. And as I noted previously, this bill has been around for several sessions. Its fate can be compared with that of the Weather Modification Office bill that Sen. Hutchinson and Sen. Udall introduced a number of times without it ever getting out of the committee. Both of these bills were bipartisan efforts in a very partisan political environment. That's poisoning the air too. And only the voters can implement the appropriate control technology for that one. Why did the Virgin committee decide to reject your proposal? I thought the prize conditions were that one had to actually remove 1 billion tons of CO2 from the air for 10 years or something like that, a rather impossible mark to achieve, much more difficult to imagine than flying a plane across the Atlantic with a bag full of mail in 1927 or taking a space plane up to 350,000 ft. Both of these are singular achievements in aviation that warranted the prizes that were awarded, but the Virgin prize conditions are the stuff of science fiction at best. ----- Original Message ----- From: Rau, Greg To: [email protected] Cc: kcaldeira-gmail ; geoengineering Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 7:25 Subject: Re: [geo] Re: calling all CDRers Certainly all forms of CDR need to be solicited, but as in most things congressional (and executive for that matter), those that lobbied for the legislation are the ones that make or influence the rules. Knowing who and what was behind S 757 would go a long way in knowing what sort of an “umbrella” we are talking about. But it’s likely not too late to lobby the senators for a broader treatment or for riders or amendments that would make it so, on the remote chance that this goes any where. Speaking of prizes, what happened to the the Virgin Earth Challenge from which my CDR idea was unceremoniously rejected? I think I speak for all CDRer’s when I say I very much look forward to getting a party invitation from the person who wins that one (and supposedly saves the world). Perhaps Mr. Branson can cover the airfare and the carbon offset. -Greg ps as for 5) - seems very unlikely that anyone would submit something whose IP wasn’t already protected. How else could an idea be (safely) reviewed by the Board, unless a blizzard of NDA’s were in place? On the other hand, requiring IP protection will place a (significant) time and money hurdle on those interested in participating with fresh, new ideas. It would seem so much easier to just crank up the global CO2 tax to $100/tonne and let “free” enterprize perform its magic (with oversight). On 4/13/11 2:51 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: Greg, Ken etal 1. Thanks for the cite on the bill. It was not yet up when I checked over the weekend. 2. I wonder if you believe that any form of biomass collection could fit under the bill's stated intent to work with "direct" collection technologies.. I think it a stretch - based on later references to EOR and geothermal. 3. I have to believe also that working with concentrated CO2 sources would also be ruled out in later legal determinations - given the emphasis on "dilute" and the stated 17% is several orders of magnitude from atmospheric.levels of .04% (what it will be before any prizes are available) 4. I think the proposed Section 6 Advisory Board could have some other duties than the few identified. Recommending budget levels and other incentives comes to mind. 5. I am concerned about the emphasis on US retention of patents. We have a world-wide problem here. 6. Like Ken, I still think it better to have a broader scope for this important CDR topic. I do not object to separating CDR and SRM - which are apples and oranges. Ron (Disclosure - I was a AAAS Congressional Fellow [in that program's first year]. I love this sort of discussion. If we want additional Congressional activity in this area [and I do], we are better off with a wide umbrella.) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Rau" <[email protected]> To: "kcaldeira-gmail" <[email protected]>, "geoengineering" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 11:13:57 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: calling all CDRers Re: [geo] Re: calling all CDRers The actual bill is here: http://barrasso.senate.gov/public/_files/S_757.pdf My reading is that the performance requirements are to be specified (by the DOE Secretary). I don’t think there are any specifications (yet) on what flavors of CDR might qualify, so head-to-head competition between dilute CO2 ---> inorg/org C vs dilute CO2---> conc CO2 could be a distinct possibility, assuming the bill goes anywhere. On 4/9/11 3:27 PM, "kcaldeira-carnegie.stanford.edu" <[email protected]> wrote: Agree that it would be much better if politicians would define the problem and allow engineers to find good solutions. Having politicians pick the technological winners is a sure path to disaster. --- Incidentally, I was going to illustrate this point with a famous quote from Van Buren about canals and trains, but this quote is apparently false !! see: http://www.snopes.com/language/document/vanburen.asp --- On a similar note, DOE has largely abandon its hydrogen car effort. Who remembers FreedomCar? http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/freedomcar_partnership.html Do they learn and decide to define the research by the problem it is supposed to solve (e.g., affordable carbon-neutral personal transport)? No, now we have the next technology pick in the transportation sector: http://www.energy.gov/news/documents/1_Million_Electric_Vehicle_Report_Final.pdf On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Ron Larson <[email protected]> wrote: Alvia, Joshua, etal: I do no know whether the bill will go anywhere. But I think it would have a lot more support if it was all-inclusive. That is, support for all forms of CDR. This is like calling for support of vertical-axis wind machines or CdTe photovoltaics. Picking winners is not what Congress is good at. I can partially understand leaving Biochar out - as that word is still less than 4 years old. But anyone wishing to see CDR pushed would find plenty of Biochar activists (lots of farmers and foresters) with a (probably) small modification of the S. 757 language. Ron Sent from my iPad On Apr 9, 2011, at 2:48 PM, "Alvia Gaskill" <[email protected]> wrote: > It's not part of a combined air/source capture strategy. These are both considered separately and the emphasis is on ambient air and lower concentration sources like oil refineries and not mentioned, but applicable, natural gas where the flue gas level is usually around 3% vs. 10 for CO2. Since this bill has been around for at least 4 years, it doesn't seem likely to get anywhere, especially in the next few months. > > http://www.eenews.net/public/eenewspm/2009/11/12/2?page_type=print > > CLIMATE: Barrasso, Bingaman float legislation to promote CO2 capture (E&ENews PM, 11/12/2009) > Katie Howell, E&E reporter > A key Senate Democrat and a leading Republican critic of cap-and-trade legislation today introduced a new bill that would award monetary prizes to researchers who figure out a way to suck carbon dioxide directly from the air. > > Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) last week introduced the bill, S. 2744, which would encourage development of technology to capture CO2 from the atmosphere and permanently sequester it. Sen. Michael Enzi (R-Wyo.) is a co-sponsor of the legislation. > > "Our proposal takes a fresh look at climate change," Barrasso said in a statement. "We want to remove carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere." > > Scientists and engineers are currently scaling up methods to capture CO2 from industrial sources, like coal-fired power plants. The bill would promote development of additional technologies to scrub the gases from the air or from sources, like oil refineries, that have lower concentrations of the greenhouse gas than power plants and factories. > > "If we could capture carbon dioxide emitted by low-concentration sources, or even the atmosphere, it would be a major step toward a cleaner energy future," Bingaman said. "A federal prize to inspire inventive solutions to this technical challenge could help us get there quicker." > > The bill would establish a federal commission within the Energy Department to award prizes to scientists and researchers making headway in the field. The nine commission members, who would be appointed by the president, would be climate scientists, physicists, chemists, engineers, business managers and economists. > > Prizes would be awarded to innovators who design technology to mop up CO2 and permanently store it. The bill does not establish the amount of the awards. > > The bill would allow the United States to share intellectual property rights with the inventor after the technology is developed. > > "The bill taps into American ingenuity and innovation," Barrasso said. "It recognizes the need to develop the technological solutions needed to address climate change. With financial awards, we can encourage the extraordinary breakthroughs needed to tackle this problem." > > Some researchers are already investigating the problem. Scientists and engineers from organizations like chemicals giant BASF, glass and ceramics maker Corning, Columbia University and the University of Calgary in Canada are all investigating new technologies that would capture CO2 from the air. > > Their ideas are varied and at different stages of development. But most involve using some sort of material to react with CO2 in the atmosphere and form a stable solution or mineral. > > Other efforts to award monetary prizes for technology development have also emerged. Airline entrepreneur Richard Branson and former U.S. Vice President Al Gore launched the Virgin Earth Challenge in 2007 to offer $25 million to the first demonstrated design to remove 1 billion metric tons of greenhouse gases per year from the atmosphere (Greenwire, Feb. 9, 2007). No one has yet claimed that prize. > > Barrasso introduced similar legislation last session. That bill, S. 2614, stalled in the Environment and Public Works Committee. > > The new bill has been referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, which Bingaman chairs, and an aide said it could move as part of larger energy and climate legislation in the Senate. > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Josh Horton" <[email protected]> > To: "geoengineering" <[email protected]> > Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2011 3:16 > Subject: [geo] Re: calling all CDRers > > > This report gives the impression that the bill is narrowly focused on > conventional point-source post-combustion CCS, but note its title: "A > bill to provide incentives to encourage the development and > implementation of technology to capture carbon dioxide from dilute > sources on a significant scale using direct air capture > technologies." The bill appears to be directed at ambient-air CDR > combined with CCS, which is more encouraging from the standpoint of > climate engineering. Of course, there is tremendous distance from a > bill to a law to implementation to success, so more than a fair amount > of skepticism is in order. > > Josh Horton > [email protected] > http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/ > > > > On Apr 8, 3:16 pm, "Rau, Greg" <[email protected]> wrote: >> CLIMATE: Barrasso, Bingaman reintroduce CCS prize bill (04/08/2011) >> Katie Howell, E&E reporter >> Sens. John Barrasso and Jeff Bingaman yesterday reintroduced their bipartisan measure that would award monetary prizes to researchers who figure out a way to suck carbon dioxide directly from the air. >> >> Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming, and Bingaman, the New Mexico Democrat who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, first introduced the carbon capture and storage (CCS) legislation last Congress, where it stalled in committee. >> >> But Bingaman in recent weeks has targeted CCS as an area with potential for bipartisan cooperation on the committee. Several Republicans, including Barrasso, are co-sponsors of CCS legislation he floated last week (E&ENews PM, April 1). >> >> And yesterday, Bob Simon, the committee's Democratic chief of staff, said, "the whole area of carbon capture and storage is one that is ripe for bipartisan cooperation in the Senate." >> >> "Frankly, if we can make sure, if we can demonstrate that you can economically capture and store carbon dioxide, you dramatically increase the range of technologies you can call clean energy technologies," Simon said yesterday at an event in Washington, D.C. >> >> Barrasso and Bingaman's latest bill (S. 757), which is also co-sponsored by Wyoming Republican Sen. Mike Enzi, would encourage development of technology to capture CO2 from the atmosphere and permanently sequester it by establishing a federal commission within the Energy Department to award prizes to scientists and researchers making headway in the field. The commission members, who would be appointed by the president, would be climate scientists, physicists, chemists, engineers, business managers and economists. >> >> Prizes would be awarded to innovators who design technology to mop up CO2 and permanently store it. >> >> "This bill taps into American ingenuity and innovation," Barrasso said in a statement. "This will increase America's energy security by ensuring the long-term viability of coal and other sources of traditional energy. Our bill provides the technology to eliminate excess carbon in the atmosphere without eliminating jobs in our communities." >> >> But despite Bingaman's optimism about moving CCS legislation this Congress, he said earlier this week that no decisions had been made about when the committee would take up the CCS measures. > > -- > 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] <mailto: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] <mailto: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] <mailto: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. -- 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.
