It's commonplace to include representation from different disciplines on
such a committee. I don't think OIF is considered either, since it is an
indirect means of lowering ambient CO2. If reaction of air with crushed
rocks were to be an option, then the impact on (there's that term again!)
biodiversity would have to be considered and the contribution of biologists
might be needed as it would be if algae were to be grown using CO2 from say,
an oil refinery's emissions. In any event, as the bill is written, biochar
is out. Even if the money is approved (me winning the Powerball and
MegaMillions the same day more likely in the present political climate), the
Secretary of Energy might not do anything with it. DOE is not really big on
contests.
As for the Virgin Earth prize, if Branson wants this to go anywhere other
than into the dustbin of the Internet, he needs to revise the terms so that
a demonstration of the technologies can be used to determine a winner. In
order to win the prize, Charles Lindbergh had to deliver one bag of mail
across the Atlantic to France, not all the mail for Europe for 10 years.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ron Larson" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: "geoengineering" <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 6:06
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: calling all CDRers
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.
--
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.
