Ron, Reading through the bill, I don't see any evidence that biomass would be excluded from this sort of competition. In fact, the proposed Advisory Board must include one biologist.
Josh On Apr 13, 5:51 pm, [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_Repor... > > 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, > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - -- 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.
