My own view in all of this is that what we need above all is research so
we are in a position of knowledge, not conjecture. There may well be a
synergy between biochar and rock dust (and why not ground up bones and
organic waste from abbatoir / fish processing waste while we are about
it?). There is the potential for a hugely transformative technology here
- and the experiments need to be done so we know the answers.
Oliver, Kyoto2.
On 21/09/2011 22:53, John Nissen wrote:
Hi Duncan,
Thank you for your tremendous effort to describe all the available
CDR/NET technologies together, in a comprehensive way such to allow a
comparison.
I've been discussing biochar and rock crushing with Ron Larson and
Oliver Tickell; we concluded that there was scope for a combined method,
which could be scaled up to remove many gigatonnes of carbon per year at
low cost. (We've used weight of carbon rather than CO2 in our
calculations.)
I think you should have a separate column for benefits, because biochar
has several: it improves soil, reduces need for fertiliser (thus avoids
considerable emissions), reduces water requirements, and is applicable
in poorer countries for improved, productive and profitable farming.
It is now recognised that ocean acidification could be far more serious
and more urgent than hitherto suggested, such that we'd need CDR to get
the atmospheric level of CO2 below 350 ppm within twenty or thirty
years. For the first ten years, we'd have to build up CDR such as to
cancel out global CO2 emissions. Then we'd have to ramp up CDR a bit
further to actually reduce the CO2 level. I would like to see biochar
take a significant role - but it would require education and
infrastructure projects to mobilise farmers worldwide.
Cheers,
John
--
On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 12:11 PM, Duncan McLaren
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Group members may find my assessment of negative emissions
technologies (NETs) of interest.
The full report runs to about 100 pages, and can be found at
https://sites.google.com/site/mclarenerc/research/negative-emissions-technologies
A summary version written for Friends of the Earth (England, Wales and
NI) will be published online later today.
The assessment covers a wide range of NETs, but not SRM techniques. It
considers capacity, cost, side effects, constraints, technical
readiness, accountability and more for about 30 options.
I'd be delighted to get feedback and comments.
regards
Duncan
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
<mailto:geoengineering%[email protected]>.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
--
--
Kyoto2 - for an effective climate agreement.
w: www.kyoto2.org
e: [email protected]
p: +44 1865 728118
--
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.
