I think the fact that they came up with cost estimates that are within an order-of-magnitude of other approaches that have received a lot of attention shows that this is an area worthy of additional research.
They did not say it was thermodynamically impossible or anything like that. They said that it looked expensive. If in 1905 you did an assessment of air travel, you would say that it looked expensive compared to trains and ships and barges. Nevertheless, costs came down and high value applications were found where people were willing to spend more. Direct Air Capture looks expensive relative to costs of other options, so it would be foolhardy to think that this will be an important mitigation tool in the next decades, given what we now know. We shouldn't put too many chips on this bet, but we should put some chips on this bet. Rob Socolow has been a champion of the portfolio approach to clean energy R&D funding. My guess is that there is not an argument of whether direct air capture should be in the R&D portfolio, but rather how large a slice of the pie should be allocated to this effort. ___________________________________________________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 9:03 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Robert and ccs > > 1. Thanks for the added links and information. Not yet mentioned on > this list is that your APS panel changed (added?) only one footnote (#18) - > and as near as I can tell - changed no conclusions. Still projecting > $600/tonCO2, it seems. > > > 2. As you may have noticed there has been some discussion this list on > how we (Society) should be evaluating climate technologies. I do think that > groups such as the APS have done and can do a great public service with > studies of the type you have performed here (but I know too little of the > topic to know if your panel or Keith should be given the higher > believability rating). I thank you for taking on a thankless task. Two > questions for you, based on my concerns (as at what may happen in Lima, for > instance) > > a. Do you feel that the air capture experts were given adequate time > to present to your panel - or might you now do something different > procedurally? > > b. Are you aware of any other similar (highly technical, multiple and > presumably un-biased panelists) technology assessment in the works (by > professional societies or anyone) for any of the other field(s) of > geoengineering? > > > 3 Your proposal with Prof Pacala to use the simplified concept of > seven wedges reaching 1 Gt C each in 50 years time (and 25 Gt C each > avoided) has been very helpful (unfortunately not yet very well followed). > Several questions on that as related to the interests of this list: > > a. Since we all (?) are trying to get into carbon negative territory > ASAP, can you comment on having each wedge grow twice as rapidly so as to > get to zero fossil carbon by 2060. This being even longer than Jim Hansen > desires, of course - so can you endorse an even shorter growth period for > the (roughly seven? or do we need 14 now?) wedges. > > b. Have you given thought as to what a similar carbon negative wedge > split should be on the CDR side? How much BECCS, air capture, ocean > deposition. tree planting, Biochar, etc? Does the wedge concept still work > as well? At what time point in the 50 year history for the "traditional" > Pacala-Socolow wedge growth would you recommend starting the CDR wedges? > Soon? > > c. Is there a way that the SRM technologies fit into a wedge > description? > > > Thanks in advance. Ron > > ------------------------------ > *From: *"Robert Socolow" <[email protected]> > *To: *[email protected], [email protected] > *Cc: *[email protected] > *Sent: *Monday, June 20, 2011 8:33:12 PM > *Subject: *RE: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report > > > Ron and others: I attach .pdfs for the report (revised) and the press > release. The links are: > > > > Report: > http://www.aps.org/policy/reports/popa-reports/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=244407. > > > > > Press release: http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/dac11.cfm > > > > The links have not been changed. > > > > Rob Socolow > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *[email protected] > *Sent:* Monday, June 20, 2011 8:08 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Cc:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report > > > > David - Can you provide a link to the revised APS report? (I failed.) > Thanks Ron > ------------------------------ > > *From: *"David Keith" <[email protected]> > *To: *[email protected] > *Sent: *Monday, June 20, 2011 4:38:16 PM > *Subject: *[geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report > > > Several recent posts have referred to the American Physical Society’s > report on Air Capture. > > > > We posted a critique of the report and in turn the APS released an updated > version that—using a post-facto kluge—addressed two of the errors that had > identified. > > > > The our comments are posted on www.carbonengineering.com the website of > our Air Capture startup company, the deep link is here: > http://www.carbonengineering.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/CE_APS_DAC_Comments.pdf > . > > > > We at Carbon Engineering are self-interested. Of course! But that cuts both > ways. We have a huge incentive do to quality engineering that can be brought > to market and not to waste our time on stuff that does not make sense. > > > > Speaking for myself, I have opportunities to do commercial work on both AC > and on biomass with capture (BECCS). And I have access to high quality > proprietary engineering and economic analysis of both. If I thought that > BECCS was much cheaper than AC then I would not be working on AC. > > > > David > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
