John: Our most recent estimate of wood harvest and storage (WHS), or 'burying wood' comes to $50/tCO2. The cost mainly comes from harvesting and (largely) in-situ storage. Best Regards! -Ning Zeng
On Jun 9, 4:07 pm, Gregory Benford <xbenf...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 <johnnissen2...@gmail.com>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-imp... > > > --- > > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 2:18 PM, Josh Horton > > <joshuahorton...@gmail.com>wrote: > > >> The UNFCCC Executive Secretary has raised the possibility of negative > >> emissions ... > > >>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/05/global-warming-suck... > > >> 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 geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > >> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > >> 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 geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > 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 geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
