Hi Greg, Your point is well taken, but I come at EOR from a different perspective, as the only significant source of demand for CO2 from direct air capture for the foreseeable future, and thus as the key current driver for DAC technology development. A while back I wrote about this on my blog (http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/2012/04/dac-and-eor.html)--here's a snippet summarizing my view:
The reality of DAC today is stated succinctly by Gunther: "air-capture technology has become *a solution in search of a market*, while its backers wait for the world to get serious about climate threat<http://www.marcgunther.com/2012/03/11/direct-air-capture-of-co2-is-becoming-a-business-for-better-or-worse/#more-10795>" (boldface original). And the reality of the CO2 market today is that it is dominated by demand for use in EOR--there are currently more than 100 EOR projects in operation paying $20-40 per ton of CO2, and the key constraint on future growth is lack of CO2 injectant supply. Like any other firm, for DAC start-ups to be successful they will need to be financially viable, and the surest road to financial viability in the foreseeable future is supplying CO2 to the EOR market. Other markets are either too small (for example, greenhouses) or too embryonic (algae-based biofuels), and support from the carbon allowance market is essentially nonexistent. Right now, EOR is the only meaningful game in town, and represents the only realistic option for DAC technology developers and their financial backers. To swear off involvement in EOR would deprive DAC of its most powerful motive force, and may well permanently consign DAC technology to the drawing-board. The quote is from Marc Gunther's e-book Suck It Up. Josh On Thursday, January 3, 2013 12:36:23 PM UTC-5, Greg Rau wrote: > > > Thanks, Josh. Anyone who really cares about stabilizing air CO2 needs to > be aware that in typical CO2-EOR the equivalent of 3 tonnes of CO2 > ultimately are released to the atmosphere via product combustion for every > tonne CO2 injected. Such activity is therefore a strong CO2 source not a > net CO2 sink, a feature that is completely ignored in the oh-so-detailed > equations offered here* to calculate "carbon credits". To be touted as part > of a "Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction" strategy qualifying for carbon > credits, on par with non-EOR geologic CO2 injection and storage, is > something I find outrageous and offensive. It's one thing to facilitate > fossil energy (and carbon) extraction and give the fossil fuel industry yet > another subsidy, but it is shameful to do this under the guise of and > monetary crediting for CO2 emissions reduction. > Anyone care to join me in sending a comment on this report to Winrock > International**, a...@winrock.org <javascript:>? > > -Greg > > * > http://americancarbonregistry.org/carbon-accounting/css-for-oil-and-gas-reservoirs-public-comment > > ** > "Winrock promotes sustainable use and management of natural resources to > support the food and income needs of growing populations and the health of > the planet. These activities encompass a broad range of programs and > services. > ----Clean Energy > ----Ecosystem Services > ----Forestry & Natural Resource Management" > > And Winrock is apparently willing to perform other activities, if the > price is right. - G > > From: Josh Horton <joshuah...@gmail.com <javascript:>> > Reply-To: "joshuah...@gmail.com <javascript:>" > <joshuah...@gmail.com<javascript:> > > > Date: Wednesday, January 2, 2013 9:52 AM > To: geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>> > Subject: [geo] New Draft CCS Methodology from ACR Covers DAC > > An interesting note for those who follow direct air capture -- American > Carbon Registry has released a draft CCS methodology that explicitly covers > DAC. To my knowledge, this is the first offset methodology that makes > specific provision for DAC activities. There is a public comment period > that runs through the end of January: > > > http://americancarbonregistry.org/carbon-accounting/carbon-capture-and-storage-in-oil-and-gas-reservoirs > > Josh Horton > joshuah...@gmail.com <javascript:> > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/DnPRghAoVmwJ. > To post to this group, send email to geoeng...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> > . > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > geoengineeri...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. > 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/gpcALg4j6AAJ. 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.
