One thing that interests me about the CDR debate is the issue of future costs.
Energy atm is of the order of 10c/kWh. How would our options change if it was 1c or 0.1c? Are there technologies which could achieve such a costs drop? A 1 order drop from solar or fusion is potentially conceivable. A 2 order drop is unlikely. Would the technology mix change accordingly? I expect that air capture would be more attractive at lower energy costs. Further, we're seeing population falls in developed countries (such as Japan) , and effective falls in countries such as the UK (now sustained by immigration and the children of immigrants) . In the 22nd century, there may be significant global population falls, and this will reduce the marginal cost of marginal land, assuming flat consumption of food, timber, etc . Such a change would make forestry solutions much more attractive, for example. I'd be interested in other viewpoints A On 2 Feb 2014 23:36, "Ronal W. Larson" <[email protected]> wrote: > List: > > The last (at least in my mail) issue of "*Science*" had a review ( > http://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6169/371.full) of the recent book > "Climate Casino" by Prof. William Nordhaus. In my mind a little more > negative a review than deserved. A more positive review was given by Paul > Krugman ( > http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/nov/07/climate-change-gambling-civilization/) > in November. > > Since both reviews gave credit for clarity and emphasis on risk, and > I wanted to hear more about climate economics, I gambled on a $14.99 Kindle > edition. I'm glad I did. There is much more on Geoengineering, including > Carbon Removal, than I expected. Nordhaus is not positive on most of > geoengineering, but here are a few comments that struck me, and might draw > further comment: > > #1 (near Kindle 2255): "..* the option of CO2 removal, which is > genuinely attractive, is postponed to later chapters.* > > #2 (near Kindle 2300) " ....*, no responsible country should undertake > geoengineering as the first line of defense against global warming."* > > #3 (near Kindle 2485) "*Suppose that British Columbia were to devote > half of its forest land, or about 300,000 square kilometers, to carbon > removal. This would involve growing trees, cutting them after they mature, > and storing them in a way that prevents leakage of the CO2 into the > atmosphere. British Columbia would soon have a huge mountain of trees, but > devoting half the province to the project would offset less than 0.5 > percent of the world's CO2 emissions in coming years."* > RWL: Several comments on these three sentences. First that the > stated 300,000 square kilometers represents well less than 0.3 percent of > global land area (of about 13 Gha). Second, depending on assumptions, the > annual carbon removal offset at this site could be larger (not less) "than > 0.5 percent... in coming years". Third, that Professor Nordhaus nowhere in > this book has used the word "biochar". None of his two uses of "nitrous > oxide", ten uses of "soil", or four dozens uses of the word "food" capture > these non-climate aspects of biochar. > > So I suspect his support of CDR will be higher when he discovers > Biochar as the most recent addition to the carbon removal option list. > > Other 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
