Hi Folks,
Greg, I have read your statement to Sen. Bingaman concerning S. 699/757
(along with the bills) and found your statement to be the most concise and
knowledgeable deceleration of the scientific/technical state of affairs
concerning CO2 mitigation yet offered.....in any forum. Your core
concluding statement "we must think beyond CCS if we are to stabilize
atmospheric CO2 at safe levels. Nature provides plenty of inspiration as to
how we might cheaply, safely, and effectively do this." is the road map
that should be followed if we are to prevent massive amounts of
resources....and time....being wasted.
This forum is not singled minded on many issues. On this policy debate, it
might be a good idea to agree upon the apparent "state of affairs" and
support S. 699/757.
Thank you....Greg,
Michael
On May 17, 2011 12:36pm, "Rau, Greg" <[email protected]> wrote:
With the sorry state of CCS and the non-discussion of air capture at the
hearing, I was compelled to write a letter to the committee - attached. I
would encourage others to also express their views to the committee.
While this may not be the beach head we had hoped for, it is nevertheless
an opening for dialogue and information exchange with the policy makers,
which should not be squandered due to lack of appropriate expert
witnesses being asked to speak.
-Greg
On 5/13/11 7:16 AM, "[email protected]"
[email protected]> wrote:
Greg (cc list).
Thanks for alerting us to this video, which I have watched. I learned a
good bit more from the pre-filed testimony and then reading the (not very
long) bill. The bill authorizes (but not appropriates) mainly for a still
not quite fixed indemnification process. I would expect the bill to be
amended a bit based on the testimony.
Like you, I think the witness testimony is not very encouraging. I have
one friend closely watching the small number of available of CCS test
results - she says the program is a disaster. You don't pick that up
clearly in this hearing - but explains why indemnification is so
important to everyone. It seemed clear that the witnesses were unanimous
that any Federal indemnification must be temporary - and not be complete.
Some liability now appropriately remains with the developers.
I was surprised that there was only oblique (very negative) reference to
the recent APS report on air capture.
I think the whole Geoengineering discipline (this list) would benefit a
lot from a little more discussion along the lines of this hearing.
Different forms of both SRM and CDR would seem to have quite different
risk (and needed indemnification) profiles. If that discussion has
reached the same level of sophistication as exemplified here (especially
the last witness), I have missed it. The (maximum of ) 10 CCS projects
will have a total of $10 billion in Federally assumed responsibility.
There was agreement that this is appropriate only at this early stage.
(Not clear if this is a maximum of $1 billion each - or cumulative $10).
Getting something similar through the UN for similar SRM activities
appears daunting. I think there is a much smaller risk and need for
insurance indemnification for the CDR areas that don't involve
underground sequestration.
Based on this hearing, I would now argue strongly that Federal
indemnification NOT be requested/allowed for the REDD+ or Biochar forms
of CDR.
Ron
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Rau" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, May 12, 2011 10:35:40 PM
Subject: [geo] Senate hearing
For those interested, archived webcast of Thurs Senate hearing on CCS and
air capture here:
http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Hearings.LiveStream&Hearing_id=bc9e9485-df04-5fb0-8621-ac3afa2b26a6
But perhaps I can save you the agony of watching. The continued economic
unviability of CCS comes to the fore (despite billions of investment),
and now more is being requested to indemnify projects. Air capture is
finally mentioned for a few sentences at about 51:30 into the session. No
air capture experts were present. Very depressing given what's at stake
and what little progress on CO2 stabilization has been made (and will be
made) on the present course.
-Greg
--
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.
