The fast growing arctic willow could be harvested and reburied by dumping the biomass onto lakes or sea. The soil in the Arctic is thick and the dried wood could also float to the sea if loaded onto the rivers (it sinks later to the seafloor). There are number of fast growing trees and bushes that could be planted on vast expanses to remove CO2. Willow has also light coloured barks and sheds its leaves for winter, so the winter and spirng time snow on the ground will reflect sunlight and heat back to space.
Biochar converted soft carbon harvesting crops, agricultural waste (i.e. straw), we should calculate how much biomaterial could be dumped if all the agricultural waste was converted to biochar each year and all the forestry wastewood was dumped to the lakes and seas. (The forestry wasted that cannot be dumped to nearby lakes/sea would be turned biochar.) What kind of stream the above two processes would genrate and at what cost would resolve perhaps a good deal. I think that geoengineering community can safely ignore the issue of considerations raised by ETC group and others. It is likely to end up as a panic when strong positive feedbacks kick in. Even untried methods will be allowed put in use in desperation, just like the World Bank funded idea to paint the melted Andes with titanium oxide (white) paint when the snow has melted away although there is no testing. Any kind of inventor will have his system put into use when the emergency is biggest. When people get ill and no tested medicine works people resort to alternative medicines like Chinese herbalists, homeopahts, acupuncture and spiritual healers, whatsoever. No one will listen to the likes of ETC that day. As long as the emissions and atmospheric CO2 load grows, there is no worries about ETC likes as the nature will make its own argument to ensure the global warming tipping point is soon breached without no natural recovery as thawing permaforst, warmed up seas and burning forests put the carbon back into air. Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2011 12:50:42 +0100 Subject: Re: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report From: [email protected] To: [email protected] CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Hi all, I've been concentrating on the Arctic methane threat for the past few weeks. The threat is extremely serious. But this talk of $600 per tonne of CO2 for air capture is another bombshell. That's $2200 per tonne of carbon! I had been assuming that we could take carbon out of the atmosphere and bury it in the ground for at most $100 per tonne of carbon. We could then pay for this out of a tax on carbon taken out of the ground in the form of fossil fuels. This tax could be ramped up to pay for increasing CO2 removal (CDR) until the CO2 level fell below 350 ppm. At $100 per tonne of carbon, this would be easily affordable - and the polluter would be paying for removing the pollution. And it could be done over 20 years, to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees (assuming we manage to deal with the Arctic methane threat) and reduce risks arising from ocean acidification (which remains an unknown quantity, so should NOT be ignored). But $2200 per tonne of carbon for direct air capture rules it out - we would need about half of world's GDP to get CO2 level below 350 ppm! So we have to find a cheaper way of doing it - which can be scaled up over about ten years to be removing more carbon from the atmosphere than we are putting in. Oliver Tickell has suggested that rock crushing could be a cheap way of removing CO2 which could be scaled up - if enough land area is available for spreading out the crushed rock. And Ron Larson has been considering whether biochar could be scale up enough - which would have benefits of soil improvement at low or even negative cost. So these approaches must be examined seriously. Judging by the "State of the ocean" report [1], we are going to need to get CO2 below 350 ppm rather quickly to avoid the "deadly trio of global warming, ocean acidification and anoxia". To quote: "In Brief: Most, if not all, of the five global mass extinctions in Earth's history carry the fingerprints of the main symptoms of global carbon perturbations (global warming, ocean acidification and anoxia or lack of oxygen; e.g. Veron, 2008). It is these three factors — the 'deadly trio' — which are present in the ocean today. In fact, the current carbon perturbation is unprecedented in the Earth's history because of the high rate and speed of change. Acidification is occurring faster than in the past 55 million years, and with the added man-made stressors of overfishing and pollution, undermining ocean resilience." I think we should aim for bringing CO2 below 350 ppm in 20 years rather than much later in the century. As Andrew aptly puts it: "We'd do well to be far more precautionary, rather than hoping we know exactly how long it is before the train hits us." However, "being precautionary" involves considering all techniques at our disposal and then pulling out all the stops. That's what I'm proposing for dealing with the Arctic methane threat, and it should be the approach for dealing with ocean acidification - and the Amazon rainforest problem (not to be forgotten after the severe droughts in 2005 and 2010 started a die-off). Cheers, John [1] http://www.stateoftheocean.org/ipso-2011-workshop-summary.cfm --- On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:13 PM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote: All this talk of limiting warming to such-and-such a rise just annoys me. We know far too little about carbon cycle feedbacks to be sure that we don't hit a tipping point. Maybe there just isn't a stable region at 3c? Maybe its 2c or 6c and nothing in between. We aren't even that certain of climate sensitivity, yet - and that's without all the tricky DMS, trop sulfur, cloud aerosol feedbacks and other nasties we barely understand The whole debate feels like playing with fire to me. Or like getting the whole population of the world to play chicken, running across the rail tracks of in front of a train. We'd do well to be far more precautionary, rather than hoping we know exactly how long it is before the train hits us. If any of the modellers on this list can prove me wrong, I'll paypal you twenty dollars. Any takers? A On 21 Jun 2011 22:56, <[email protected]> wrote: > Bob etal > > Thanks for a very complete response. > > I appreciate the rationale for limit of 2 or 3 or more degrees maximum, but > am going to still push for a 1.5 degree limit (ala Jim Hansen) - thinking we > might thereby get 2 or 2.5. I feel we could even do 1.5 if we got serious - > and of course we are not. I'm pretty sure the smaller temperature rises are > the cheaper - not the more expensive - approach > > Re item 2b and a CDR analysis, I agree we need one (or more). Some LCA's are > beginning to appear for Biochar - many PhD theses in the woks I'll bet. > > Re 1 ppm per year for 100 years - Jim Hansen is trying for a quicker response > (in part because he starts sooner and lower). I'd appreciate a thought on the > needed Gt C/yr to accompany your 1 ppm per annum. More or less than 3? (still > trying to understand the way the ocean will react over 50 (Hansen's) years.) > > Re your last paragraphs and 1 W/m2 - I am going to pass, until I hear a lot > more. You have an interesting use of "conservative" and "liberal" in here. > > Ron > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Robert Socolow" <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected], [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 12:57:14 PM > Subject: RE: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report > > > > > Ron, Ken, and others: > > > > Given that the Lima meeting is in its middle day today, let me push > everything aside to write answers to Ron’s questions. I am speaking only for > myself. > > > > 1. Yes, there is only one change, aside from formatting, in the June 1 > version of the APS report. We say so on the second page of the preface. As we > were issuing the unformatted version at the end of April, David Keith > identified a clear mistake in our report, involving the pressure drop per > meter for a specific packing material, which we had carried forward from a > 2006 paper. Fortunately, one member of our committee, Marco Mazzotti, was an > author of that paper. With one of his co-authors, he updated his earlier work > with new information from the manufacturer of the packing, additionally found > an error in his earlier analysis, followed a hunch that there was an easy fix > for us by substituting one packing for another, and we buttoned this up. The > new packing is cheaper, but we verified that our initial cost estimate for > packing had been so conservative that the new packing actually fit the > assumed price better. I am aware at this time of no outright error in our > report. People may find some, and if they do I hope they will tell me about > them. > > > > 2. Item a. In my view, the experts (specifically Keith, Lackner, and > Eisenberger) were given adequate time to interact with us. Our project took > two years. We established groundrules at the front end that there would be an > arms-length relationship and (confirmed more than once) that as a matter of > policy we would not learn confidential information. All three presented to us > at our kick-off meeting in March 2009, reviewed a draft (along with almost 20 > others) in April 2010, and communicated repeatedly with us. I had the > personal goal of being sure that the key ideas in their work were understood > by our committee and commented upon in our report. Nonetheless, none of the > three of them is happy with the result. One comment all three would make is > that they would have done the study differently. They would have asked what > air capture could cost if one were to assume success in the presence of risk; > our committee felt that in the absence of reviewable published data, this was > an illegitimate task. We decided to include one cost estimate based on a > benchmark design, resulting in a system whose cost is probably quite a lot > higher than $600/tCO2, and in the process, by careful attention to > methodology, the reader can learn how to think about costs. Personally, I now > appreciate (and the reader will too who works through the calculation) that > the most underestimated cost factor is the pressure drop as air moves through > the contactor, which enters not only as a an energy cost but also through its > impact on “net carbon,” even for largely decarbonized power. All three > experts are working on low-pressure-drop systems for this reason. > > > > Item b. I know of no comparable study. We call explicitly for some group to > do some comparable analysis of biological air capture: afforestation, > biochar, BECS – maybe one study for each. In that instance it will be > critical to understand what scale-up looks like: small-scale deployment is > cheap and could have major co-benefits. But how much planetary engineering is > entailed if one aims for the reduction of atmospheric CO2 by 1 ppm per year > for a hundred years – negative carbon on a monumental scale? > > > > 3. ASAP means “as soon as possible.” I think one needs to be careful with > such language. If one is in a car, one can slam on the brakes or brake > carefully. Both could be called smallest-possible-distance braking, but the > meaning of “possible” would be different in the two cases, with more > conditionality in the second case. When Pacala and I wrote the wedges paper > in 2004, we identified a societal goal of an emissions rate at mid-century no > higher than today’s; if restated in today’s language, 30 MtCO2/yr in 2061. > That goal is now considered timid by many – it is associated with “3 > degrees,” while the more politically correct “2 degrees” is associated with > 15 MtCO2/yr. My view is that we shouldn’t choose between these two goals now. > We should make that decision in 10 to 20 years, but concentrate now on > getting on a new path. But I think it is also important, and will make the > activist community more credible, if we concede in some prominent way that > the world could overreact to climate change, undervaluing what can go wrong > when “solutions” are deployed, from the destruction of forest ecosystems to > nuclear proliferation. In short, we want to keep conditionality at the front > of our minds, not treat it as an afterthought. > > > > We should be suspicious of distractions, and, to my mind, direct air capture > is one of these. Air capture is a close neighbor of post-combustion capture > at coal and gas power plants, a much cheaper mitigation strategy. This simple > fact about technological neighbors tells is to be very careful always to > state that near the top of the mitigation agenda for several decades is > decarbonizing the global power system. There is something grotesque about > pulling CO2 our of the air at one place while pouring it into the air at > four-hundred times greater concentration at another place. First things > first. > > > > The underlying irresolvable argument is political. Is a radical goal (2 > degrees) that requires instant comprehensive mitigation best suited to spur > action, even when activists widely concede (mostly privately) that the goal > is unachievable and has the potential to lead people to throw caution to the > winds? Or is a liberal goal (3 degrees) -- more suited to deliberative > action, more respectful of the legitimate needs of developing countries, and > more matched to the building of coalitions -- a better choice? Which is more > likely to lead to our getting started and not having our grandchildren > looking at “5 degrees”? > > > > I leave the Lima group with a final thought. Is SRM only an emergency > strategy? What are the pros and cons of a continuous ground-bass deployment > of 1 W/m^2 of stratospheric aerosol negative forcing, as an overall helper on > the margin and as a way of learning about larger deployment? > > > > Rob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > [email protected] > Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 12:03 PM > To: Robert Socolow > Cc: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report > > > > > 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 > ----- Original Message ----- > > > 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. > -- 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.
