Hi Fred, Yes, we must compare and contrast methods, but also combinations of methods. And we have to consider not only carbon capture but carbon sequestration (how long is carbon held?), methane suppression, avoided emissions, ocean acidification, albedo enhancement and food production.
On land we have the possibility to combine rock crushing of olivine with biochar, to enhance carbon capture, reducing artificial fertiliser (thus avoiding CO2 emissions) and improving crop yields. Rock crushings on the soil surface can enhance albedo. In lakes we have the possibility to use diatoms to purify water, suppress methane and feed a food chain, whose products or residues could be used as biomass for input to a biochar process. At sea, we have the possibility to combine diatoms with rock crushing of olivine to capture and sequester carbon, while reducing ocean acidification, feeding the food chain and enhancing albedo of the water surface. But in every case it is scalability that is crucial, if we are to make the necessary impact on Earth System to prevent catastrophes from global warming and ocean acidification while feeding an expanding population. Cheers, John On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 2:10 AM, Fred Zimmerman <geoengineerin...@gmail.com>wrote: > I like the idea of listing many (most?) of the known processes. I believe > that GE in general suffers from a lack of synoptic thinking as advocates of > individual technologies become "single issue voters". > > > --- > Fred Zimmerman > Geoengineering IT! > Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology > GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080 > > > On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 7:28 PM, <markcap...@podenergy.org> wrote: > >> Greg and Ron, >> >> Indeed. Your letter could be more effective listing the known negative >> carbon processes. Just off the top, likely missed some, not listing the >> issues: >> >> >> - Ocean Macroalgal Afforestation per N'Yeurt 2012 "Negative carbon >> via Ocean Afforestation." >> - Biochar >> - BECCS >> - Olivine and other minerals (anyone know the speed of reaction with >> hot supercritical CO2 in hydrofractured minerals?) >> - OIF >> - Lime in the ocean >> - Managing livestock for more soil carbon in plant roots >> - Chemical "trees" >> - Real trees (stored as lumber, artificial fertilizer sustains growth) >> - Diatoms >> >> >> Mark E. Capron, PE >> Oxnard, California >> www.PODenergy.org >> >> >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [geo] New climate article, peripherally related to CDR >> From: RAU greg <gh...@sbcglobal.net> >> Date: Sun, May 05, 2013 10:14 am >> To: rongretlar...@comcast.net, Geoengineering >> <Geoengineering@googlegroups.com> >> >> Thanks Ron. I agree that "irreversible" is a poor choice of words given >> that once we stop emitting fossil CO2, air CO2 and global T (+- inertia) >> will eventually decline back to pre-industrial levels due to nature's CDR, >> but in a time frame of say 50 kyrs. The paper does acknowledge that once we >> stop emitting, air CO2 will start to decline, but the possibility that we >> might be able to accelerate or augment this air CO2 removal is ignored. I'd >> say that this might be an opening for a letter to Science from the CDR >> community perhaps with the title "CO2: Reversible and Avoidable". Anyway, >> count me in. >> -Greg >> >> >> As for your wording, here's what I'd say, open to further discussion: >> >> Given the reversibility of *air CO2 concentrations and hence*CO2-induced >> warming, every increment of *reduced or* avoided >> temperature increase represents less warming [x, y] >> that would otherwise persist for many >> *millenia (Archer et al., 2009)*. Because *post-*emissions *(i.e., air >> CO2)* removals >> can return global *CO2 and* temperatures to preindustrial >> levels, they do have the power to >> avert additional warming *or affect cooling* on the same time >> scale as the emissions reductions *or removals* themselves. >> Climate warming tomorrow, this year, this >> decade, or this century *is* predetermined >> by both past and future CO2 emissions *as well as the rate of CO2 >> removal.* >> The climate benefits >> of *both* emissions reductions and *enhanced CO2 removal [CDR] will*thus >> occur on the same time scale as the political >> decisions that lead to *CO2 emissions* reductions *and/or CDR*. >> >> One little caveat here is that CDR must operate by not only removing CO2 >> from air, but also in removing the excess, ocean-absorbed CO2 that will >> degas back into the air, al la Cao and Caldeira (2010). So the response of >> air CO2 conc to air CO2 removal alone will be (very) sluggish. This is why >> I'm a big fan of consuming excess CO2 in the ocean (via base/alkalinity >> addition). This addresses multiple birds with one stone: ocean-->air CO2 >> flux is reduced or reversed, ocean acidity is neutralized, and the bio >> effects (on calcification) of ocean acidity are offset by alkalinity >> addition. Given earth's past successes in mitigating excess global CO2 in >> this fashion, it would seem unwise to ignore Mother Nature's example, but >> I'm open to better ideas. >> -Greg >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* "rongretlar...@comcast.net" <rongretlar...@comcast.net> >> *To:* Geoengineering <Geoengineering@googlegroups.com> >> *Sent:* Sat, May 4, 2013 3:06:48 PM >> *Subject:* [geo] New climate article, peripherally related to CDR >> >> List: >> >> 1. I believe this article from last week's *Science* could be >> valuable to this list, although there is (close to) zero mention of either >> side of geoengineering: >> *Irreversible Does Not Mean Unavoidable*; H. Damon Matthews 1 >> and Susan Solomon 2 >> Science 26 April 2013: Vol. 340 no. 6131 pp. >> 438-439DOI:10.1126/science.1236372 >> >> >> >> 2. I hope someone can help me understand the use of "Irreversible" in >> the title and, as an example, in the final paragraph: >> >> "Given the *irreversibility* of CO2-induced >> warming ( 5, 6), every increment of avoided >> temperature increase represents less warming >> that would otherwise persist for many >> centuries. Although emissions reductions >> cannot return global temperatures to preindustrial >> levels, they do have the power to >> avert additional warming on the same time >> scale as the emissions reductions themselves. >> Climate warming tomorrow, this year, this >> decade, or this century is not predetermined >> by past CO2 emissions; it is yet to be determined >> by future emissions. The climate benefits >> of emissions reductions would thus >> occur on the same time scale as the political >> decisions that lead to the reductions." >> >> Cites 5 and 6 are: >> 5. S. Solomon, G. K. Plattner, R. Knutti, P. Friedlingstein, >> Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106, 1704 (2009). >> 6. H. Matthews, K. Caldeira, Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L04705 (2008). >> >> 3. Believing that CDR is real and alive, I would have preferred to see >> this (my emphasis added) as: >> >> Given the *reversibility* of CO2-induced >> warming, every increment of avoided >> temperature increase represents less warming *[x, y]* >> that would otherwise persist for many >> centuries. *Because* emissions re*movals* >> *can* return global temperatures to preindustrial >> levels, they do have the power to >> avert additional warming on the same time >> scale as the emissions reductions themselves. >> Climate warming tomorrow, this year, this >> decade, or this century *is* predetermined >> by *both *past *and future* CO2 emissions* and removals >> * >> The climate benefits >> of emissions reductions *and removals* would thus >> occur on the same time scale as the political >> decisions that lead to the reductions. >> >> My cites (x and y) might be from Jim Hansen and Bill McKibben, but also >> this list, the Royal Society and the new NRC study all of which describe >> various CDR approaches. All mistaken? I ask why this second version >> should not be the more accurate. >> >> 4. In defense of the authors, whose work I otherwise uniformly admire, I >> think the intended word rather than "irreversiblity" might have replaced >> "ir" with (awkwardly) "non-utilized" or "un-utilized". The "ir" strikes >> me as guaranteeing a physical impossibility, for which no proof is >> offered. I think this important as CDR gets too little attention anyway, >> to be saddled with "irreversible" >> >> Thoughts? >> >> Ron >> >> -- >> 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. >> 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. >> 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. >> 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
