Josh (cc list): You may be correct. I can't think of a good reason for the biologist. But the word "direct" would seem to exclude Biochar. I still recommend a clarification -to garner more supporters.
Ron Sent from my iPad On Apr 14, 2011, at 3:25 PM, Josh Horton <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > -- 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.
