Kudos Rob. A systems analysis is demanded. CCS should be DOA; it is a poor choice economically and operationally, and the transactional costs will be far larger than stated (if stated). I project they will be up to 50% of total cost & this does not to count the elephant in the room, money carrying costs. For its real cost & real time to delivery we should act to replace brown fuels (largely fossil) with green fuels immediately. We can facilitate rate of change by democratizing decision making & thereby making the decision less costly with products that will have a shorter lifetime promoting technological change. Compare the rate of change & breath of availability telephone handsets when controlled by AT&T vs mobile phone options. Grid and pipeline backup ail always be needed but local production trumps centralized delivery - presuming costs can be controlled, maintenance minimized & installation made easy, i.e., make apparatus both idiot-proof and drop & drive - intelligent.
Mike On Mar 20, 2013, at 12:55 PM, Robert H. Socolow <[email protected]> wrote: > Come on, Ken and others: The “logic” depends on the baseline. > > If one’s baseline is that the oil industry will be producing in the vicinity > of 80 million barrels per day (mbd) of oil -- the current value -- for > several decades, then the comparison is between alternate ways of doing this. > Using public policy to encourage CO2-EOR for few of these mbd’s, then, to > first order, has no effect on the rate of oil extraction or its price, and is > a lower-cost subsidy of CCS than direct subsidy. Experience on both the > capture side and the storage side is gained and results in lower future costs > and a better understanding of risks. > > If one’s baseline is that the oil industry is about to shut down as the > combined result of public transport, efficient cars, biofuels, and electric > vehicles, then EOR postpones the inevitable and is a thoroughly bad idea. > > The DOE is using the first baseline. It is not illogical. > > Rob > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 11:54 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf); [email protected]; geoengineering > Subject: Re: [geo] CDR money in DE-FOA-0000785? > > I think Greg's logic is impeccable. > > With this call, the US DOE is soliciting proposals to increase, not decrease, > CO2 emissions to the atmosphere. > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 7:24 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear all, > > Generally, if you don't propose within the small box described in the FOA, > your proposal won't rise to the level of "educating" DOE, let alone get > funded. But, if anyone would like to question DOE about the limits of the > "box", I can do so for the group. The questions need to be of the nature > "Might ____ approach be considered for funding?" > > "Questions regarding the content of the announcement must be submitted > through the FedConnect portal. You must register with FedConnect to respond > as an interested party to submit questions, and to view responses to > questions. It is recommended that you register as soon after release of the > FOA as possible to have the benefit of all responses. DOE will try to > respond to a question within three (3) business days, unless a similar > question and answer have already been posted on the website." > So far, all the questions have to do with properly formatting the proposal. > Most interested parties do not pose technical questions for fear of "giving > away" technical information to the other proposers. > > Mark E. Capron, PE > Oxnard, California > www.PODenergy.org > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [geo] CDR money in DE-FOA-0000785? > From: "Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf)" <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, March 20, 2013 1:53 am > To: "'[email protected]'" <[email protected]>, > "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, geoengineering > <[email protected]> > > Why are people still focused on the silly idea that one should sequester CO2 > from industrial point sources, and governments on sequestering “their own” > CO2 emissions? The atmosphere is a well-mixed reservoir on a time scale of > months, so where the CO2 is produced, and where it is sequestered are > irrelevant for the climate. So don’t go for the most expensive solution, but > do it the way nature has always done it, natural weathering. We only should > help that solution a bit, because presently we pump much more CO2 in the > system than nature normally does. Attached my proposal (one of the last > eleven finalists, from originally more than 2600 proposals) to the Virgin > Earth Challenge for the best idea to remove 1 billion tons of CO2 from the > atmosphere, Olaf Schuiling > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of RAU greg > Sent: dinsdag 19 maart 2013 22:39 > To: [email protected]; geoengineering > Subject: Re: [geo] CDR money in DE-FOA-0000785? > > Thanks, Mark. > > To quote the FOA: > "A market-based solution to improve the economics of CO2 capture includes the > utilization of captured CO2 for EOR to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions > from coal-based power generation sources while improving energy security. A > National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) study[1] estimates that the > utilization of approximately 20 billion tonnes of CO2 captured from > coal-fired power plants, natural sources, and industrial sources in EOR > applications could produce up to 67 billion barrels of domestic oil from > economically recoverable resources." > > So let's see if I understand this. If 0.42 tonnes of CO2 are released to the > atmosphere per barrel of oil, the 67 Bbls of oil produced from 20 Gt CO2 > injected will "unsequester" 28 GT CO2. Considering that power plant CO2 > would only make up 18 GT of the injected CO2 (see fine print) means that 1.6 > GT CO2 would be unsequestered for every tonne of anthro CO2 injected. The > current CO2-EOR industry average is more like 3 GT CO2 out per GT injected > and it is unclear what the economic motivation would be to lower this ratio > given the high cost of CCS CO2 relative to conventional geologic CO2 sources > for EOR. > > Then there is this interesting analogy offered to put things in perspective: > "However, large numbers such as billions of tons of CO2 demand and storage > capacity are different [sic] to grasp and thus often of limited value. An > alternative way to illustrate the CO2 demand and storage capacity offered by > “Next Generation” CO2-EOR is to use the metric of the number of one-GW size > power plants that could rely on CO2-EOR for purchasing and storing their > captured CO2....: > § After subtracting out the 2.3 billion metric tons of CO2 supply currently > available, CO2-EOR still offers sufficient technical storage capacity for all > of the anthropogenic CO2 captured from 228 one-GW size coal-fired power > plants for 30 years of operation." [1] > > What is not stated is that the equivalent CO2 emissions of 365 one-GW > coal-fired power plants x 30 years will be unsequestered and released to the > atmosphere via the oil produced and combusted. This does not square with the > FOA's stated intent: "...to provide solutions for addressing the CO2 emission > and global climate change concerns ..." > > In any case, a cost of concentrated CO2 of <$61/tonne is the stated goal, a > real challenge for retrofit CCS at conventional power plants, and a miracle > for CDR (Socolow et al., House et al.). Those offering to mitigate CO2 by > (cheaper) means other than making conc CO2 (for EOR) need not apply (FOA, pg. > 7), and can continue to wait for meaningful policy and public funding in > support of ideas that might actually help save the world rather that > perpetuate BAU. > > -Greg > > [1] Dipietro, Philip, Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 > Emissions with “Improving Domestic Energy Security and Lowering CO2 Emissions > with “Next Generation” CO2-Enhanced Oil Recovery (CO2-EOR)”, Report # > DOE/NETL-2011/1504, June 2011. > http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/pubs/NextGen_CO2_EOR_06142011.pdf > > From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > To: geoengineering <[email protected]> > Sent: Tue, March 19, 2013 7:07:03 AM > Subject: [geo] CDR money in DE-FOA-0000785? > The U.S. Department of Energy seaks proposals for capturing coal exhause CO2, > due May 2nd. They expect the captured CO2 will be used for Enhansed Oil > Recovery. > > If you have a capture-CO2-from-air (CDR) system that could be located close > to an oil well and might therefore be less expensive than > capture-from-exhaust, you might propose. DOE is likely to consider such a > proposal "non-responsive." > Bench- and Pilot-Scale Applications for Research and Development of > Post-Combustion and Pre-Combustion Carbon Dioxide Capture Technologies for > Coal-Fired Power Plants > > Funding Opportunity Number: DE-FOA-0000785 > > Response Due Date: 5/2/2013 11:59:00 PM ET > > Use the following link to view this opportunity: > > https://www.fedconnect.net/fedconnect?doc=DE-FOA-0000785&agency=DOE > > If you wish to continue to be notified about this opportunity, please be sure > to Register. If someone else in your company has already registered your > company's interest, add yourself to the Response Team by clicking Join. > > This message is sent to you as a courtesy because you listed DOE in your > FedConnect user profile. If you wish to be removed from future emails about > this agency, please update your user profile > athttps://www.fedconnect.net/fedconnect > > Mark E. Capron, PE > Oxnard, California > www.PODenergy.org > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
