The APS study is optimistic I think at ~$600/ton. Note this from our CROPS paper: *The total cost of CROPS would be 340 $/t C, or 74 euros/t CO2 (2006), about twice that of the highest value of carbon on the European market in 2005-2006, 33 euros/tCO2. These costs do not include some capital costs and the cost of monitoring soil and the ocean deposition sites. If the carbon market were structured to reward sequestration methods with longer sequestration times, CROPS could be economically viable.*
I'd like to see the calculation behind "Oliver Tickell reckons that rock grinding could work out at only a few dollars per tC." Is it published? Same for biochar, with estimated lifetimes factored in? Gregory Benford On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 9:21 AM, John Nissen <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi Josh, > > Thanks for that. It could be very useful to know, as I may just possibly > be meeting Ms Figueres later this month, thanks to a high-flying neighbour > who knows her! He also knows Lord Stern, of the Stern Review, to whom I > have written without effect, but Ms Figueres seems to be more open to CDR > possibilities! She may also be interested in the Methane Workshop - > September 3-4th - that I'm organising. > > Critical to CDR could be the cost. Unfortunately a body of scientists in > the US has come out with a very high cost - at over $600 per tC (tonne of > carbon) [1]. This needs to be repudiated. Oliver Tickell reckons that rock > grinding could work out at only a few dollars per tC - it would be done with > renewable energy of course. And biochar is potentially self-funding - with > advantages of soil improvement, etc. > > Cheers, > > John > > [1] > http://www.inewsone.com/2011/05/10/direct-removal-of-co2-from-air-impractical-scientists/49447 > > --- > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Josh Horton <[email protected]>wrote: > >> The UNFCCC Executive Secretary has raised the possibility of negative >> emissions ... >> >> >> >> >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/05/global-warming-suck-greenhouse-gases?intcmp=122 >> >> Global warming crisis may mean world has to suck greenhouse gases from >> air >> As Bonn talks begin, UN climate chief warns of temperature goals set >> too low and clock ticking on climate change action >> >> Fiona Harvey, environment correspondent >> guardian.co.uk, Sunday 5 June 2011 18.10 BST >> Article history >> >> The world may have to resort to technology that sucks greenhouse gases >> from the air to stave off the worst effects of global warming, the UN >> climate change chief has said before talks on the issue beginning on >> Monday. >> >> "We are putting ourselves in a scenario where we will have to develop >> more powerful technologies to capture emissions out of the >> atmosphere," said Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN >> Framework Convention on Climate Change. "We are getting into very >> risky territory," she added, stressing that time was running out. >> >> The UN climate talks starting on Monday in Bonn, which run for the >> next two weeks, will try to revive the negotiations before the next >> climate conference, taking place in Durban, South Africa, in December. >> But little progress is expected, as the negotiating time is likely to >> be taken up with details such as rules on monitoring emissions. >> >> Figueres tried to inject a greater sense of urgency into the >> proceedings by pointing to research from the International Energy >> Agency that found that emissions had soared last year by a record >> amount. The strong rise means it will take more effort by governments >> to curb emissions. >> >> Figueres told the Guardian in an interview that governments should act >> now to save money: "We add $1 trillion to the cost [of tackling >> climate change] with every year of delay." >> >> However, as the latest talks begin, the world's leading climate change >> official has upset governments by insisting that the aim of the >> negotiations ought to be to hold warming to less than 1.5C. That would >> be a much tougher goal than that set by governments last year, which >> seeks to limit the temperature rise to no more than 2C – the safety >> threshold, scientists say, beyond which warming becomes catastrophic >> and irreversible. >> >> "In my book, there is no way we can stick to the goal that we know is >> completely unacceptable to the most exposed [countries]," Figueres >> said. >> >> The difference between the two goals may not seem great, but since it >> has taken more than 20 years of talks for countries to agree on the 2C >> limit, many are unwilling to reopen the debate. Delegates are >> conscious that wrangling over whether to stick to 1.5C or 2C was one >> of the main sources of conflict at the Copenhagen climate summit in >> 2009; the hope has been that talks can move on to other issues such as >> how to pay for emissions curbs in poorer countries. >> >> "This is an extraordinary intervention," said one official involved in >> the climate talks, who could not be named. >> >> Figueres said that she had the support of the world's least developed >> countries, most of Africa, and small island states. >> >> Another factor casting a pall over this year's talks, which are >> intended to forge a new global treaty on climate change, is criticism >> of the South African government, which will host the Durban talks. No >> interim meetings have yet been set up, and countries have complained >> of disorganisation and a lack of enthusiasm. But Figueres said: "South >> Africa has been very carefully listening, trying to understand where >> there are commonalities and where the weaknesses are." >> >> She also predicted the US would play a strong role in the talks, >> despite the Obama administration facing Republican opposition in >> Congress to action on emissions. "It's very evident that the >> legislative body in the US has disengaged, but … the administration >> continues to be engaged." she said. >> >> But Todd Stern, chief negotiator for the US, called for participants >> in the talks to "roll up their sleeves and be constructive." >> >> -- >> 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.
