Greg, List, etal (Hoping that Dr. Hansen finds time to read little items like this - if from Dr. Rau)
see inserts below ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Rau" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Cc: "geoengineering" <[email protected]>, [email protected], "James Hansen" <[email protected]>, "James Hansen" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 9, 2011 1:00:20 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Vatican Report Re: [geo] Re: Vatican Report What I’m saying is that to my knowledge there is no free lunch with respect accelerating the earth’s natural CDR – they all require energy, including very strongly endothermic photosynthesis (biomass, biochar). [RWL: Need to make a little quibble. I haven't seen photosynthesis previously described as endothermic - but I won't deny it is. There has been recent discussion on photosynthesis as being at the heart of non-equilibrium thermodynamics - and I think that very much relates to Hansen and a new 100 GtC of standing biomass. But I still prefer to think of Biochar being produced in an exothermic process - useful heat being captureable. I agree of course that the input biomass had a substantial solar input - well in excess of the recovered energy as one makes charcoal. I guess we are discussing where to draw the boundary for the word Biochar - especially when extra energy and costs would be required for waste disposal. While photons may be free, the land ocean/area to collect them (+ plant management) has a cost; monetary, societal, and/or environmental. [RWL: Certainly agree. But, somewhat different from the carbon-neutral PV, ST, wind, etc use of similar photons - there are numerous social benefits with biomass on land/ocean - maybe foremost being food. The issue is not only "monetary, societal, and/or environmental" costs. Some of these CDR approaches allow some recovery of the original energy input including, biochar, BECCS, and accelerated mineral weathering. [RWL: I still need to read the House & Rau papers, but I think there is a substantial (1/3?) energy and input-resource penalty with BECCS. There is no obvious long-term out-year benefit that I can think of for the sequestered liquid CO2. Clearly BECCS can provide valuable energy (and more than Biochar if Biochar doesn't also have a BECCS hybrid component). But, I have to continue to maintain that Biochar is different from your two examples (and all the other CDR approaches - and not easy to quantify or sell).] These differences are not captured in any part of the Vatican Report. What we need is R&D to determine which if any of these might ultimately be useful and cost effective, and where. [RWL: Total agreement - my reason for continuing this dialog.] With all due respect to Hansen, I would hesitate crowning biology/agriculture as our savior at this stage given that this would be a significant departure from the way the earth has naturally mitigated excess CO2 in the past (via mineral weathering), but agree that we need to objectively consider all options. [RWL: And I am not saying that Dr. Hansen has included Biochar in his recent thinking. I'd have to let him answer on whether " biology/agriculture" is our "savior". My take is that nothing is being proposed by Dr. Hansen or anyone else with as much promise. You are correct of course that mineral weathering has and will play a major continuing role in mitigating excess carbon. But I think also that biology (probably not agriculture) is doing much more mitigation in the year 2011. Of course I agree with your last (all options) sentence. I’ll attach a copy of the House et al. paper and my related wrinkle. [RWL: Again thanks very much for those (hopefully to be read tonight). Yours is very important work and I am in no way saying that we shouldn't explore all CDR options. I am (to repeat, unfortunately) that Biochar both benefits and suffers from two features unique in the CDR world - energy is supplied (not needed to besupplied) and the effects are long term. Anyone seeing how to readily handle the latter benefit/curse will hopefully chime in. Re Dr. Hansen's recommended use of tree planting as his presently preferred CDR approach - I can add that the Biochar community will welcome that with open arms - with promises for a much larger (and continuing and growing) impact than 100 GtC. Ron] Regards, Greg On 5/9/11 10:32 AM, " [email protected] " < [email protected] > wrote: Prof. Rau: 1. It will take a while to get around the pay wall for the House article [ ^ < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proposed_geoengineering_projects#cite_ref-92 > House, K.Z., House, C.H, Schrag, D.P., Aziz, M.J. Electrochemical acceleration of chemical weathering as an energetically feasible approach to mitigating anthropogenic climate change. Environ. Sci. Technol., 41(24): 8464-8470, 2007. But it would not seem to violate either of my two main Biochar uniqueness claims (energy aspects and out-year benefits). 2. I have downloaded your own paper cited below [ " Electrochemical Splitting of Calcium Carbonate to Increase Solution Alkalinity: Implications for Mitigation of Carbon Dioxide and Ocean Acidity"] - http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate%20change/Carbon%20sequestration/Rau_EST_08_reprint.pdf ] and will read ASAP. But my initial perception is the same - energy needed to process - and analyzable without having to consider out-years (discount rates, appropriate analysis period, etc) 3. More inserts below. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Rau" < [email protected] > To: [email protected] , [email protected] Cc: "geoengineering" < [email protected] > Sent: Monday, May 9, 2011 10:06:37 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Vatican Report Re: [geo] Re: Vatican Report Unclear on the statement “only Biochar ...provides rather than requires energy...” Unless I’m missing something biochar requires massive solar energy input, meaning massive land (and/or ocean?) area management, and probably water and nutrient management as well (additional energy requirements?). [RWLa: Yes on "massive solar input" - but obviously if not used for photosynthesis when the solar energy arrives, it is lost forever. Next time I will be more clear on my meaning. Yes also on "massive land (and/or ocean?) area management". We are talking about a major change in land use patters. The biggest problem (along with how much possible in the way of annual harvest) for sure. But we are starting with NPP of some 60 GtC/yr from a standing biomass of some 500 GtC. (And more potentially available from the oceans) Jim Hansen (citation below) last week called for adding a new 100 GtC to standing biomass. Probably should be thought of as a replacement - not new. Using a simple ratio says we should be able to have a new added NPP of 12 GtC/yr - and (very roughly) Biochar could then supply 6 each GtC/yr of carbon-neutral and carbon-negative. So the issue is whether Jim Hansen has estimated too high when calling for 100 GtC of new biomass.] True, some useable stored solar energy could be syphoned off in the pyrolysis process, but partial energy recovery is also part of some abiotic CRD approaches (House et al 2007. Environ. Sci. Technol. 41: 8464–8470; Rau 2008. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42: 8935–8940). [RWLb: See opening comments above on the two cites. Pyrolysis is exothermic. Energy return on energy invested is hard to calculate for Biochar (given the outyear follow-on benefits) - but seems pretty high. If these two articles reference approaches that can supply net energy (also assuming any solar energy use is "free"), I look forward to reading about that (and the difference in costs).] We need a forum (beyond this googlegroup) wherein CRD ideas can be openly solicited, clearly described, and fairly evaluated (at least on paper). [RWLc. I agree. But in the absence of that new forum for all of CDR [sic], I think it helpful to continue here for a while. If such discussion is inappropriate on this list, then "Geoengineering" should probably be redefined to only mean SRM.] Having national/international policies that would be supportive of such efforts wouldn’t hurt either. [RWLd. Agreed. I think we may see REDD+ happen pretty soon. It made some progress at Cancun. Much more is needed. Thanks for the additional information. Ron] -Greg On 5/8/11 11:23 AM, " [email protected] " < [email protected] > wrote: Josh: I should have noted that important paragraph on carbon dioxide removal (CDR) myself. It was probably the main reason for recommending the report. Thanks for pointing that paragraph out. Re below: I thought it was also important to point out again (ad nauseum - with apologies) that the word Geoengineering should be replaced by Solar Radiation Management (SRM) when the latter is all that is being discussed. CDR and SRM have a few things in common - but they are very different. In particular - only Biochar (and not all of CDR) provides rather than requires energy AND Biochar is the only CDR approach that provides out-year climate benefits. When Jim Hansen proposes 100 GtC of a new forestry carbon sink - I believe he is thinking much more of mitigation than of Geoengineering. To repeat, Biochar can couple exceedingly well with this new sink (and how to pay for either has not been established). I think this list would benefit from a discussion of whether planting a new 100GtC of forest is Geoenegineering. Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Josh Horton" < [email protected] > To: "geoengineering" < [email protected] > Sent: Sunday, May 8, 2011 7:35:03 AM Subject: [geo] Re: Vatican Report Ron, Note the following on p. 4: "Nations should also avoid removal of carbon sinks by stopping deforestation, and should strengthen carbon sinks by reforestation of degraded lands. They also need to develop and deploy technologies that draw down excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere." I would also be interested in learning more about the working group dialog, especially the views of those non-scientists in attendance. Josh Horton [email protected] On May 7, 7:03 pm, [email protected] wrote: > Prof. Robock (with ccs) > > 1. There has been a good bit of web traffic in the last few days about a > report (" Fate of Mountain Glaciers in the Anthropocene"), where you are > listed as a co-author. The full 17-pp report is down-loadable > athttp://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdscien/2011/... > > 2. In general, I think this is well done. I have hopes it will be > influential. My question is how the dialog went within your fellow co-authors > (any others knowledgeable on Geoengineering?) on Geoengineering. More > specifically can you say anything on the differences discussed between CDR > and SRM? The first Geoengineering sentence below would seem to suggest that > Biochar (clearly a CDR technique) should not be considered a "Mitigation" > measure (which I consider it to be) > > 3. The description of Geoengineering for your C45 panel (re message sent just > before this one) clearly states that Geoengineering has two distinct parts > (CDR and SRM) - but this below seems to be directed only at SRM. Can you > explain why this discrepancy? > > 4. A new paper was released yesterday by Jim Hansen of relevance. He has (for > the first time?) a goal for new additional standing biomass of 100 gigatons > carbon (about a 20% increase?). This proposed activity (which I believe > qualifies also as both CDR and mitigation) will be a great base for Biochar. > Biochar can even accelerate that new 100 GtC through utilizing this > substantial new addition to today's land-based NPP of about 60 GtC/yr.. > Seehttp://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110505_CaseForYoungPeop... > > Ron > > (The Vatican Geoengineering material on pp 14-15 is sufficiently short that I > include it all here) > > Geoengineering: Further Research and International Assessment Are Required > > Geoengineering is no substitute for climate change mitigation. There are many > questions that need to be answered about potential irreversibilities, and of > the disparities in regional impacts, for example, before geoengineering could > be responsibly considered. There has not been a dedicated international > assessment of geoengineering. Geoengineering needs a broadly representative, > multi-stakeholder assessment performed with the highest standards, based for > example on the IPCC model. The foundation for such an assessment has to be > much broader with deeper scientific study than there has been a chance to > carry out thus far. > > It may be prudent to consider geo-engineering if irreversible and > catastrophic climate impacts cannot be managed with mitigation and > adaptation. A governance system for balancing the risks and benefits of > geoengineering, and a transparent, broadly consultative consensus > decision-making process to determine what risks are acceptable must be > developed before any action can be taken. -- 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.
