Oliver, cc list: 1. Thanks for this response below. I don't believe that you have been specifically identified on this list as the author of the "Economist" summary report that I identified (below, on the 22nd). Am I correct that this (unsigned) was your article?
2. I have no real questions on either the "Economist" article or the following. Not being there, and not knowing much about DAC, I judge you have done a fine job in your reporting. Your "Economist" editors are to be commended for getting you there and getting your report out so quickly. 3. As I tried to learn more after I read your yesterday posting (below), I learned that you had written a book, on photosynthesis: " Eating the Sun: How Plants Power the Planet ." Fortuitously, my nearest library had a copy and I have just finished reading most of it. (as you recommended early in the book, I chose to come back to the first several chapters - so I still couldn't pass a simple test on the details of photosynthesis - the main topic of this book). But I was surprised how much was devoted to (your term and I like it) the "carbon climate crisis" (will shorten this to 3C - because you use the term "C3" a lot as a form of sugar) 4. I was particularly delighted that you had so much that relates to Biochar - although never mentioning that word (which was coined in 2007 - after you finished the book). Out of your 15 pages of citations, fewer than ten were from 2006 and only 2-3 from 2007, so it is clear you could not really discuss Biochar in the book. You clearly have had great access to James Lovelock - who has said (paraphrasing) that Biochar is the only 3C solution. Could you now support Dr. Lovelock (and myself) on Biochar - and specifically the (very aggressive) scenario about which I wrote earlier today in a message commenting on Professor Socolow's APS report and his Ppt prepared for Calgary? 5. I am partly writing this note to carry on the biomass-3C push of a former Geo list member: Dr. Peter Read. Peter recruited me to this list - after we met (barely) at a 2007 Australia Biochar Conference. You clearly alsso had good access to Peter. Others reading your book and perhaps some on this list will not be aware that Peter died 24 Nov, 2009. For some other leads to his biomass - 3C thoughts, see an obituary at http://www.feasta.org/2009/12/08/obituary-dr-peter-read/ The main biomass-3C connection in your book relates to the conversations you must have had with Peter. I would therefore appreciate hearing anything further you might have on Peter's or your thinking on the present CDR thread re Biochar. 6. Mostly though I write this to encourage anyone interested in this biomass side of CDR to read your "Eating...Sun" book. You have written about almost everything that Biochar offers in addition to 3C (soils, water, nutrients, heat and excess CO3 effects, NPP, etc) I also found numerous excellent quantitative material - all written in very clear readable prose - probably the clearest reading I have yet found on biomass, energy, and 3C. A few footnotes and no citations - but easy to follow up on specific cites (for instance there are 8 for Dr. Lovelock's Gaia work). Other names that have sometimes appeared on this Geo list are Ken Caldeira, Robert Socolow, Tim Lenton and Alex Kleidon. Thanks for writing this very interesting and pertinent book. Again, thanks for the 2 main messages which most of the list will have read. Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "O Morton" <[email protected]> To: "geoengineering" <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 6:06:56 AM Subject: [geo] Re: Calgary meeting on Direct Air Capture - thoughts? A few points as someone at the meeting and, it appears, a gusher... As Tim Fox pointed out in Calgary, the lack of any near-term likelihood of large carbon markets paying substantial prices has changed the terms of discussion. If DAC is to have any chance near term (and my feeling was that the consensus of the people on the APS panel that I talked to remains that it really doesn't) then it needs to be able to sell carbon dioxide into a market that both values the product fairly highly and actually exists. That is what the companies are looking with EOR and algae. The hope is that if the companies can get established in one of these niches, learning-by-doing effects and increased resources for R&D can drive the cost of capture low enough to be applicable more widely to climate issues.I would judge that for most of the guys working on this the selling CO2 is a means to an end, and if the climate relevant end were to disappear, so would their interest in and commitment to the technology. That said, we all know that people can get into a biz for idealistic reasons and stay out of inertia after those reasons dissipate. An exception here is Peter Eisenberger. Peter sees DAC and fuel-making as providing a new anthropic loop in the carbon cycle, and seems to have little interest in eventual sequestration. I think that's an interesting idea if somewhat ahead of its time, for a fairly high value of somewhat. When Greg says: Why start with a highly artificial and expensive process of concentrating molecular CO2 when nature provides much lower cost and less risky examples that are already in global scale operation? it seems to me that there are two answers. One is "No one says you have to. Enhanced weathering is very interesting and I applaud that you work on it. But there should be a strong ex ante supposition that looking at more methods and technological development pathways is a better idea than looking at fewer, and if some people are looking at different things then that's their right". The other is that concentrated carbon dioxide is a sellable product. I'm not sure how hard it would be to get an enhanced weathering scheme certified in a way that it could get carbon credits even for a VER market. It will obviously never be applicable to a market where having concentrated carbon dioxide to sell is part of the point. As the meeting was about DAC, not negative-emission techs more generally, doesn't seem that surprising that weathering wasn't an issue there. (There was a very interesting poster about direct seawater capture.) Dave's point that: If DAC earns a reputation as just another industrial gas production technique it will encounter well-deserved opposition. Is perhaps incomplete. I don't think industrial gas production companies in general face a lot of opposition. if DAC becomes an industrial gas production enterprise *which trades on climate claims it can't back up*, then opposition seems likely to be strong (cf biofuels). If it just does its thing, then it's not clear anyone would care that much one way or another. All this said, it does seem to me, as I wrote, that if through brilliance today's enthusiasts confound the expectations of other engineers and bring DAC costs down far enough for some quasi- commercial niches those niches are likely to be self limiting. If DAC can meet them profitably and they are of any significant size then carbon capture approaches applied to high-CO2 point-sources will move in and outcompete them. This seems to help in answering Greg's question "why is venture capital interested". I don't think it is, very much. Marc Gunther's book reports that Arch, the VCs who bought into Lackner's technology, are looking into selling the IP and moving on. The other firms seem to depend more on angels than VC. Angels have different motives, lack the same need for exit strategies, and are more easily moved by non- commercial motives. And the risk profile is likely too high for a lot of VC types. Remember that a) a significant number of people see the APS costs as too low and b) the companies have to beat them by more than a factor of four to stand a chance. Hope that helps, o On Mar 23, 2:19 pm, "Hawkins, Dave" <[email protected]> wrote: > I participated in the Calgary DAC meeting and in my remarks my primary > message was the need to resist the pressure to morph the technology into > a commodity CO2 production technique. If DAC earns a reputation as just > another industrial gas production technique it will encounter > well-deserved opposition. > > As to whether DAC has a future as a genuine carbon-negative technology, > this is an economic proposition. Currently, it seems pretty expensive > but as has been pointed out, the actual costs won't be known until > someone tries it in a real-world context and there may be a role for it > to address remaining emissions after all the less expensive options have > been deployed. In my view, this argues for a modest R&D program to > build a few demo plants. > > I understand the temptation for today's developers to look at the EOR > market as a way to do some learning by doing but I believe it is the > wrong path to follow. Such a path would create economic relationships > that could wind up impeding the policy changes we need to protect the > climate, rather than helping to speed those changes. > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira > Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 7:17 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: Geoengineering; [email protected]; Howard Herzog; John > Schellnhuber > Subject: Re: [geo] Calgary meeting on Direct Air Capture - thoughts? > > "So what is the DAC business model, why is venture capital interested, > and what does it have to do with stabilizing air CO2? " -- GH Rau > > Greg, I think you hit the nail on the head. > > If we think of direct air capture as negative emissions, then air > capture is basically a more expensive way to reduce net emissions. > > So, the only plausible business model is serving activities where CO2 is > needed where direct air capture may be able to provide the CO2 at lower > cost (or at least more conveniently), i.e., the goal is to profit > primarily by providing CO2 as a commodity. > > You mention enhanced oil recovery (EOR), which of course involves a net > flux of carbon from geologic formations to the atmosphere. Another > possible application might be military applications where you want to > make jet fuels on a nuclear powered aircraft carrier using atmospheric > CO2 and seawater. > > If the above framing is correct, then direct air capture is more about > seeking profits from oil companies and the military-industrial complex > than it is about reducing climate risk. > > As the IPCC concluded in its 2005 Special Report on Carbon Capture and > Storage, there just aren't enough products that need CO2 as an input for > provision of CO2 for industrial uses to be a significant contributor to > climate risk reduction. > > If EOR is really a primary target application, then direct air capture > is more about increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations than it is about > decreasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations; it is more about increasing > climate risk than decreasing climate risk. > > It would be interesting to hear from the direct air capture companies > whether they see themselves as being in the business of climate-risk > reduction, and if they answer in the affirmative, it would be > interesting hear their rationale. > > _______________ > 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 > > YouTube: > Climate change and the transition from coal to low-carbon electricity > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9LaYCbYCxo> > Crop yields in a geoengineered climate > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0LCXNoIu-c> > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 3:35 AM, RAU greg <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ron, > > Thanks for asking: > > 1) Wasn't invited to Calgary. > > 2) As Socolow et al and more recently House et al. PNAS 108:20428-20433 > <tel:20428%E2%80%9320433> have shown, if your game is removing CO2 from > air, concentrating molecular CO2 from air is probably the last thing you > want to do because of the prohibitive thermodynamics and hence cost. > But what really irks me about the DAC crowd is they act as though they > are inventing air capture, e.g., the Economist article's subtitle that > gushes: > > "The idea of pulling carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is a beguiling > one. Could it ever become real?" > > or Marc Gunther's quote: > > "Most scientists believe removing CO2 from the air is expensive and > impractical to do on a global scale." > > Let me be the first to break the good news; air capture is occurring all > around us, to the tune of about 17 Gt CO2/yr. That's right, the > equivalent of about 57% of anthro CO2 emissions is thankfully already > being removed from air by natural process for free. I'd say that is a > pretty good example of effective, low cost, global scale air capture, > in contrast to the latest $1000/tonne CO2 figure of House et al. So, if > one is interested in increasing air capture, the obvious places to start > are figuring out how to 1) increase global photosynthesis > (afforestation, ocean fetilization), 2) decrease respiration of biomass > (biochar), or my favorite, 3) increasing mineral weathering rates. Then > there are hybrids of 1 -3. Why start with a highly artificial and > expensive process of concentrating molecular CO2 when nature provides > much lower cost and less risky examples that are already in global scale > operation? > > 3) Haven't read Marc's ebook, but assume it's along the lines of the > Economist article. Perhaps he'll send me a free, autographed copy > > 4) See above. I've submitted a followup letter to PNAS, for what that's > worth. > > 5) Good point - why insist on concentrated, molecular CO2 as your end > product? Nature doesn't. One has to conclude that EOR is their end > game, in which case this generates a net air CO2 source rather than a > sink: In standard CO2-EOR, 3 tonnes of CO2 are generated from product > per tonne of CO2 injected. You can be sure that oil companies will want > to increase (worsen) this 3/1 ratio if they are paying >$100/tonne CO2 > injected. Traditional geologic sources of CO2 for EOR are less than > 1/10th this cost. > > So what is the DAC business model, why is venture capital interested, > and what does it have to do with stabilizing air CO2? Any Calgarians > care to fill us mortals in? > > Your humble messenger, > > Greg > > ________________________________ > > From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > To: Geoengineering <[email protected]> > Sent: Thu, March 22, 2012 3:41:23 PM > Subject: [geo] Calgary meeting on Direct Air Capture - thoughts? > > List: > > 1. I thought this list had a very useful dialog a few months ago on > the CDR technology called Direct Air Capture (DAC - sometimes > "Artificial Trees"). I have just become aware of an invitation-only > meeting on this topic - hosted by the group "ISEEE" at the University of > Calgary on March 6 and 7. A preliminary agenda is available at: > http://www.iseee.ca/dacs/<http://www.iseee.ca/dacs/> > > 2. Two useful recent descriptions of the dialog are given at: > > http://www.economist.com/node/21550241 > <http://www.economist.com/node/21550241> > > and > > http://www.marcgunther.com/2012/03/11/direct-air-capture-of-co2-is-becom > ing-a-business-for-better-or-worse/ > <http://www.marcgunther.com/2012/03/11/direct-air-capture-of-co2-is-beco > ming-a-business-for-better-or-worse/> > > 3. Marc Gunther also had an article on the major DAC companies just > as the meeting was starting at: > > http://chimalaya.org/2012/03/06/rethinking-carbon-dioxide-from-a-polluta > nt-to-an-asset/ > > 4. I gather from this material that Prof. Socolow was under > considerable pressure to lower his (and APS') decidedly negative > projection on costs. I wonder if any list member in attendance can > comment on this controversy - that was covered nicely on this list. > > 5. I also gather there was considerable unhappiness in the present > emphasis of all (?) of these DAC companies away from CDR - and instead > on to uses of the captured CO2 for enhanced oil/gas production and for > combination with H2 for appreciably lower carbon footprint fuel > production. Any comments on these aspects - or any other part of the > meeting? > > Thanks in advance for any additional information. > > Ron > > -- > 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] > <mailto:geoengineering%[email protected]> . > For more options, visit this group > athttp://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] > <mailto:geoengineering%[email protected]> . > For more options, visit this group > athttp://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 > athttp://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.
