OK, thanks. So the options are: 1) standard biocombustion with CCS, presumably this means the end "fuel" is electricity. 2) Gasification is the "combustion" of biomass with super hot water forming syngas, H2 + CO. This can be combusted for electricity (+CO2) generation, can be water shifted to form H2 (+CO2), or can be used (precursor) for hydrocarbon fuel production. Electricity and H2 thus seem the only possibility for C-negative fuels if CCS were applied. 3) Pyrolysis (low O2 combustion) of biomass forms syngas and biochar. Here biochar offers some C sequestration whether the syngas is used for electricity, H2 or hydrocarbon fuel production. In the latter case, what would need to be shown is that this sequestration is larger than the C footprint of the additional energy subsidies needed to synthesize higher hydrocarbons from syngas (not to mention the C penalty in biomass cultivation, harvesting, transporting, and processing). OK so far?
A way to make C negative fuel abiotically is to power water electrolysis with non-fossil electricity, while also placing base minerals around the anode. This forces OH- produced at the cathode to go unneutralized until contracted by air CO2, whereupon the CO2 is consumed and converted to (bi)carbonate in solution. Thus, the H2 fuel produced is strongly C negative. Placing the resulting long-lived (bi)carbonate in the ocean isn't a bad thing either (neutralizes/offsets ocean acidification). Details: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/05/30/1222358110.full.pdf http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM30u95uC0c&feature=youtu.be Other candidates within the C negative fuels arena? Actually, the preceding H2 could compliment the above biofuels production because the production of standard hydrocarbon fuels from biomass usually requires an additional source of H2 for fuel upgrading. Better that that H2 be C negative rather than the usual very C-positive H2 from methane reforming ;-) Other ideas? Greg ________________________________ From: Peter Flynn [[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2014 12:40 PM To: Rau, Greg; [email protected] Subject: RE: [geo] Geoengineering in a World Risk Society - By Tina Sikka. Greg, Any biofuel production without carbon sequestration is carbon neutral, based on the assumption that the regrowth of plants offset the carbon emitted in fuel usage. Any biofuel production with carbon capture and sequestration is carbon negative. The three examples that come to mind are flue gas capture of CO2 from biomass combustion, CO2 capture from oxygen gasification, and biochar. Peter Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D. Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Alberta [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> cell: 928 451 4455 From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Rau, Greg Sent: February-02-14 11:55 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: [geo] Geoengineering in a World Risk Society - By Tina Sikka. Maybe i missed something, but what is "carbon negative biofuel production"? Greg ________________________________ From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] on behalf of Michael Hayes [[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2014 11:33 AM To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [geo] Geoengineering in a World Risk Society - By Tina Sikka. Oscar, The premise of the paper is highly biased. To quote: "I argue that it is their inherently global, unpredictable, uninsurable and potentially catastrophic character, which can be both inimitable, frightening,......". Carbon negative biofuel production is not "unpredictable", "uninsurable", "potentially catastrophic", "inimitable" nor "frightening". The same can also be said about MCB, direct air capture, biochar, olivine in its' many uses, flue capture etc. By characterizing the entire geoengineering tool box as Frankensteinish, the author shows her lack of in depth understanding of the science and engineering. Emily makes a good point in that we are constantly involved in activities which affect our planetary ecology. The truly "frightening" thing about these undeclared GE activities is that few have environmental or social value. GE has great potential for both. Best, On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:07:32 PM UTC-8, Oscar Escobar wrote: Dear Emily, I am sorry you chose to focus on such narrow area of the paper, in which she perhaps did not elaborate appropriately. But she does so a bit more in the main body, if you read the complete work. Even so I think that , 'outlandish' is one of the more terse terms I have heard used to describe geoengineering in a negative manner. And I mean terse, compared to some other adjectives used by some geoeng. proponents. What I though more important than her assessments of individual techniques, was that, even though she is highly, and rightfully, critical of GE, she highlights the importance of not only the public's participation in the dialogue but the need for continued research. Now the fact that a few 'lay persons' may have a chance to post here, doesn't mean that the public at large is involved in the conversation. Consider that Geoengineering has been talked about (with its present CO2 focus) at least since the 1970s, and yet the science in general is still presented as new. Regarding her assessment that continued research is needed, I would think that is something geoengineering researchers would welcome. Dear Dr. Salter, Thank you for the paper, I have read and written a little on the cooling effects of these type of clouds and the hydrological cycle in general. I am not a professional scientist. I blog and comment from a layperson's point of view. I guess the knowledge I do possess is what the average lay person with some interest may be able to gather these days. I would generally agree with you that we need to know more. But, why not start first by being exhaustive about knowing the effects of aviation emissions and ship tracks, which are two of the closest anthropogenic analogs ("albeit imperfect") to SRM? Regarding the roll of clouds, and in my limited capacity, I have written a few entries in my blog such as these: On cirrus: A SAFER ALTERNATIVE TO SOLAR RADIATION MANAGEMENT http://geoengineeringclimateissues.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-safer-alternative-to-solar-radiation.html On type of cloud: Short cutting the cooling properties of the hydrological cycle http://geoengineeringclimateissues.blogspot.com/2013/04/short-cutting-cooling-properties-of.html Water vs Heat - Re. Global warming affects crop yields, but it's the water not the heat http://geoengineeringclimateissues.blogspot.com/2013/03/wow-out-just-today-march-4-2013-eye.html Best Regards, Oscar Escobar A #Geoengineering #Climate Issues Blog - Geoingeniería On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 3:01:47 AM UTC-5, Emily L-B wrote: Hi thanks for this. Perhaps it is a cultural or translation issue, but 'outlandish' is quite an 'outlandish' word for a scientific paper. - I am struck by the application of this term for painting roofs white, OIF and mirrors in space because taking these examples, we do all of these things already: We have, i dont know how many, black rooves in the world already(why is white worse); We pump sewage and drain fertiliser from the land around the world in I dont know what quantity daily in very concentrated time and space in inshore waters which are much more vulnerable (fertilising the ocean in shallow seas with low water exchange often); And we pump i dont know how much dust into the atmosphere daily, globally, on a rather large scale. On top of these, we are already doing an amazing amount of other things to Earth on the most incredible scale. And we dont seem to be able to agree to stop. I am not sure i understand why efforts with the intention of being positive are viewed so negatively when things we do in full knowledge of their negative impacts are allowed to continue and increase with little or no successful strategies to stop them. Best wishes, Emily. Sent from my BlackBerry(R) smartphone on O2 ________________________________ From: Oscar Escobar <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> Sender: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:24:12 -0800 (PST) To: <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> ReplyTo: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: [geo] Geoengineering in a World Risk Society - By Tina Sikka. Hello all, A short intro about me. My name is Oscar Escobar, I blog about geoengineering (climate engineering) here: A #Geoengineering #Climate Issues Blog - Geoingeniería Geoengineering - Climate Engineering from a layman's critical perspective. http://geoengineeringclimateissues.blogspot.com/ Previously I described myself as 'opposed' to geoengineering. This continues to be largely accurate in the case of SRM and OIF deployment. But I do think that more public knowledge is important for all concerned. Twitt here: @oscare2000 https://twitter.com/oscare2000 paperli http://paper.li/oscare2000/1347466963 This article by Tina Sikka stroke a chord with me, I am posting it here hoping it helps in broadening the conversation, best regards, Oscar Escobar Lakeland, FL - EEUU Geoengineering in a World Risk Society By Tina Sikka. (Full paper in academia.edu<http://academia.edu> (scroll down a few pages) https://www.academia.edu/5672333/Geoengineering_in_a_World_Risk_Society Abstract: http://ijc.cgpublisher.com/product/pub.185/prod.126 Published by The International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts and Responses In the following paper, I draw on Ulrich Beck's model of the world risk society to examine, unpack and critique geoengineering technologies. Briefly, geoengineering can be defined as large-scale technological interventions into the environment in an attempt to mitigate or even reverse climate change. They include such proposals as painting the surfaces of buildings white to reflect the sun's rays, placing mirrors in space for similar ends or the more interventionist seeding of oceans with iron in order to encourage the growth of carbon absorbing algae blooms. What is startling about geoengineering is that despite its seeming outlandishness, it has recently been seriously considered by a number of governments, corporations, research institutes and professional scientific bodies. In an attempt to better understand and appreciate the possible normative, political, economic and environmental consequences of such large-scale technological interventions, I have found Beck's thesis of reflexive modernity and the world risk society to be particularly useful and illuminating. Essentially, Beck's thesis is that we live in a world that distinguished from the past by the extent to which it is constituted by global technological risks that one, tears down traditional boundaries between people and their environments (de-localization); two, resists anticipation by conventional scientific and/or rational means; three, denies compensation or insurability against danger; and four, re-orients social attention to the constant anticipation of catastrophe. These risks, as Beck argues, "represents a shock for the whole of humanity" who never could have anticipated "the self-destructiveness-not only physically but also ethical-of unleashed modernity" (Beck, 2006, p. 330). In applying these insights to geoengineering, it becomes clear that these technologies are, by definition, risk technologies. I argue that it is their inherently global, unpredictable, uninsurable and potentially catastrophic character, which can be both inimitable, frightening, which renders them in need of further study. As such, in undertaking an examination of these questions, I have chosen to divide this article into the following sections: I begin with a brief introduction to geoengineering technologies and discuss not only what they are and what they are supposed to do. Following this, I delve into a more considered discussion of how geoengineering technologies are in fact risk technologies as Beck defines them. I begin with an overview of reflexive modernization, followed by discussions Beck's concepts of risk, insurability and responsibility, and subpolitics, which I use to examine geoengineering in turn. -- 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]<mailto:[email protected]>. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]<mailto:[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.
