Dr. Schulling: Thanks for the addition. I enjoyed reading all six approaches, not only section 2.2. Section 2.3 on stopping fires using rock dust slurries was of special interest because of your section 3 estimate of substantial saving benefits (not costs). I am not qualified to know whether a slurry approach is practical soon, but we can certainly start soon to create fire breaks to prevent the really large fires. The breaks could supply an additional resource for all the biologic CDR approaches, with no issues of ILUC, competition with food, etc. We could also prove that the intentional setting of annual fires is a bad idea everywhere.
Re #2.2 (diatoms)- yours does not mention CDR - only biodiesel. My hope is that we can encourage more analysis of similar ocean bio approaches that also are CDR. Thanks especially for the Table of estimates on amounts and costs. We need more such. Ron On Sep 23, 2013, at 1:04 AM, "Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf)" <r.d.schuil...@uu.nl> wrote: > Have a look at section 2.2 of the attached paper, Olaf Schuiling > > From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com > [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf OfRonal W. Larson > Sent: maandag 23 september 2013 1:21 > To: r...@llnl.gov > Cc: andrew.lock...@gmail.com; geoengineering > Subject: Re: [geo] Scientific advice improved outcome of UN climate talks > > Greg, Andrew and list: > > 1. Thanks to Andrew for the alert on IEAGHG. I think this group is > limited to deep underground sequestration - cannot likely even be interested > in DAC = Direct Air Capture, whose collection costs seem to forgo a CDR > opportunity (per Prof. Socolow analysis). This group appears not likely to > be able to study CDR. > > 2. Thanks to Greg for two things: First, the recommendation on > "distance" between SRM and CDR. I think our only hope is that the Royal > Society issue another two reports separately covering SRM and CDR (not on > Geoengineering). > > Second for use of the term "natural air capture", which I think covers > six of the seven CDR approaches listed in the recent BBC report (not DAC). > > 3. But mostly, because of information only learned today, this is to alert > list members to an article that helps all the biological CDR approaches. > Helps with information on the high efficiency of the photosynthesis approach > called "CAM" = crassulacean acid metabolism. Much less water needed than for > the C3 and C4 types of photosynthesis. I highly recommend this (free) > article by an Oxford University group, perhaps headed by a Dr. Borland: > http://jxb.oxfordjournals.org/content/60/10/2879.full > > 4. This is a new discovery only for me. I found many earlier and later than > this 2009 paper - but this one has good numbers for analysis, including huge > land area potentials (double or more global ag land) that hopefully can > overcome THE presumed major hurdle (because of conflicts with land for food) > for the biological CDR approaches. This approach applies to agave and > similar arid region plants, which are reported to be even more productive > than sugar cane (CAB plants absorb CO2 at night and can close their stomata > during the day). > > So far I haven't found even one paper coupling "CAM" with CDR. But lots > on biofuels (with low costs projected). > > Ron > > > > On Sep 22, 2013, at 2:50 PM, "Rau, Greg" <r...@llnl.gov> wrote: > > > From below, > "According to Dixon, although emissions reductions should be the priority for > tackling climate change, the hypothetical engineering of the Earth's climate > is another technology that needs proper consideration. "Geoengineering will > face even more challenges than CCS in getting through negotiations," he tells > SciDev.Net. "And so the scientific advice on those issues will become even > more essential." > > GR - I think the key message here is that CDRers need to distance themselves > from geoengineering and risks associated with SRM. Certainly emissions > reduction should be a priority, but so should enhanced air capture since > natural air capture is doing way more to limit air CO2 conc than human > actions including CCS can (so far) dream of. I really don't understand why > R&D on this should be such a tough sell, but continuing to lump CDR in with > SRM isn't helping. Happy to provide "scientific advice on those issues" if > it is so "essential", so where do we send our cards and letters? Or is IEAGHG > (with its emissions reduction agenda) the UNFCC's information gatekeeper, as > the abstracts imply. > > > > > From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on > behalf of Andrew Lockley [andrew.lock...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2013 3:43 AM > To: geoengineering > Subject: [geo] Scientific advice improved outcome of UN climate talks > > Poster's note : abstract below, media coverage bottom. Geoengineering > information deficit discussed, but not in abstract. > > http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876610213009466 > > Energy Procedures Volume 37, 2013, Pages 7590–7595GHGT-11Open Access > > Getting Science and Technology into International Climate Policy: Carbon > Dioxide Capture and Storage in the UNFCCC > > Tim Dixona, , , Dr Katherine Romanakb, Samantha Neadesa, Dr Andy Chadwickca > > Abstract > > This paper describes how providing scientific information to negotiators > assisted in achieving inclusion of carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS) > in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Clean > Development Mechanism (CDM) during 2011. We provide specific examples of how > scientific information from IEAGHG Research Networks in the areas of > monitoring, modelling, environmental impacts and groundwater protection were > used to address the issues of concern listed in the Cancun Decision (2010). > Technical input was provided by members of IEAGHG Research Networks via the > UNFCCC's technical workshop on Modalities and Procedures for CCS under the > CDM, such that the negotiations in Durban (2011) were better informed by an > understanding of the most recent technical information. The outcome was the > agreement of CCS-specific modalities and procedures for including CCS in the > CDM. > > Keywords > > Regulation; Emissions Trading; International Policy; Clean Development > Mechanism; Carbon Dioxide Capture and Storage; CCS > > http://m.scidev.net/global/environment/news/scientific-advice-improved-outcome-of-un-climate-talks.html > > Scientific advice improved outcome of UN climate talks > > Joel Winston > > 04/09/13 > > Some negotiators have no technical background and are underprepared > > Expert advice on carbon capture and storage aided debates between UN talks at > Cancun and Durban > > But it is hard to conclusively link the improved debate to the input of > experts > > UN climate change policy negotiators need more access to expert advice on new > technologies such as carbon storage and geoengineering, according to an > expert whose study found that providing scientific information to negotiators > before debates resulted in more productive discussions. The paper, published > in Energy Procedia last month (5 August), says that the annual Conferences of > the Parties (COPs) held in relation to the UN Framework Convention on Climate > Change (UNFCCC) have limited and imperfect routes for providing scientific > information to negotiators. "Some negotiators have no technical background. > Many work from their country's briefs and don't get a chance to get organised > beforehand," says Tim Dixon, one of the paper's authors and manager of carbon > capture and storage (CCS) and regulation at the International Energy Agency > Greenhouse Gas R&D Programme (IEAGHG), an international research initiative > that evaluates technologies that can cut emissions from fossil fuel use."And > for many developing countries, there are so many issues in these meetings, > they struggle to keep up with everything they might want to comment on. > Negotiations can therefore involve a fairly low level of technical knowledge > and lead to misunderstandings," he tells SciDev.Net. The paper discusses > improving the dissemination of scientific advice to negotiators in the > context of CCS, the underground storage of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel > power stations. Developing nations that are currently considering CCS > projects to minimise their greenhouse gas emissions include Botswana, Brazil, > China, Indonesia, Mexico and South Africa, according to Dixon. However, > previous UNFCCC negotiations have raised concerns with the technology, such > as the potential accidental escape of carbon dioxide from underground > storage, and that it may encourage increased fossil fuel use. To assist, > IEAGHG provided experts to talk with negotiators at an extra UNFCCC technical > workshop in Abu Dhabi in September 2011. According to the paper, the workshop > enabled good, open discussion and helped to successfully convey technical > points about CCS to negotiators including those on environmental impacts and > monitoring solutions. "This meant that most of the main negotiators went into > the following COP in Durban far better informed about the issues, and they > also felt more confident in themselves," says Dixon. According to the paper, > the negotiators who attended the Abu Dhabi workshop raised the quality of the > 2011 Durban negotiations on potential rules and procedures for governing CCS > use. After these debates, CCS was successfully included in the UNFCCC's Clean > Development Mechanism, the main policy tool for implementing low-carbon > projects in developing countries. The rules now define who is responsible for > underground carbon dioxide, which Dixon says provides environmental > protection and helps legitimise CCS in developing countries. He says that > technical workshops could become increasingly important for negotiations on > future climate change mitigation technologies. According to Dixon, although > emissions reductions should be the priority for tackling climate change, the > hypothetical engineering of the Earth's climate is another technology that > needs proper consideration. "Geoengineering will face even more challenges > than CCS in getting through negotiations," he tells SciDev.Net. "And so the > scientific advice on those issues will become even more essential." David > Reiner, senior lecturer in technology policy at the University of Cambridge, > United Kingdom, says that, while various IEAGHG mechanisms may have affected > some detailed aspects of the outcome at Durban, "it is inherently difficult > to demonstrate a causal linkage between activities and outcomes since there > are a number of reasons for a particular outcome of a negotiation". > > > -- > 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 togeoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > 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. > 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 togeoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > <Five ways.docx> -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
