Dr. Calvin and ccs See few inserts below
On Feb 12, 2014, at 1:34 PM, William Calvin <[email protected]> wrote: > I start from urgency: lots of climate change in a decade with something of a > hiatus in near-surface air warming. Anything effective we do will have a lead > time and then a drawdown time. [RWL1: Agreed. > > If that is to be no more than 25 years, we have to both counter the > additional emissions (say, 350 GtC) in that period but also remove 300-400 > GtC of the existing accumulation. So we are looking at more than 30 GtC/yr of > removal from the air, some of which will come from ocean surface bicarbonate > buffers reversing. [RWL2: I agree with your numbers, but have been thinking 50 years - on the theory we should perhaps go down at about the same rate we have come up. I think biochar could do all of the 15 Gt C/yr half, if it expands to include ocean biomass, which is not on very many plates. I concede not many people are thinking many GtC/yr from biochar - but there are quite a few. I think we will want more than one CDR approach; but I have come to the conclusion that biochar has the most potential - and can be much larger than is generally realized. Biochar application practice is known in many countries over millennia. > > This time frame says we don't have time for anything that requires time for > trees to grow or a lot of development: known processes like photosynthesis > are preferable. 30GtC/yr requires a lot of space; on land, it requires a lot > of water. That's why I suggest ocean, using local organisms that are sunk > into the depths before they can rot. [RWL3: I believe the time delays will not be in finding the necessary raw biomass in time. I predict the time delay will be in finding the needed funding. My vision for the long term biomass supply is first ag residues, then coppicing, then rapid-growth perennials harvested annually (as with sugar cane), then CAM-type photosynthesis (agaves, etc). All this possibly supported by macro and micro algae (being more photosynthetically efficient), both freshwater and oceans. With all of this, especially oceans, maybe 15 GtC/yr is possible. If you are correct that you can do 30GtC/yr with push-pull ocean resource, then about the same might be (should be??) possible with that same resource placed into soils, rather than back in the ocean. I say the same because the CO2 amount lost in pyrolyzing can/will be offset with out-year increased productivity (especially through improved fungi growth). And since BECCS can be coupled with biochar, even the initial loss can be lower. The issue of water is of course one to worry about, but biochar is touted as saving water, which in any case is totally recaptured upon pyrolysis. But I am totally supportive of using ocean water/nutrients to the maximum extent possible. > > I've sketched out such a process using push-pull pumps driven by wind and > wave, but I would expect a Second Manhattan Project to come up with something > better. [RWL4: I am only proposing that further analysis might show that one pull pump plus pyrolysis and soil deposition might be that "something better". My reading on your approach suggests there will be opposition, that would not be there if the new biomass is transferred to soils. > > I can see biochar etc for longer term approaches, especially for stabilizing > CO2 once drawn down. But it does not pass my Big, Quick, and Surefire Test. [RWL5: Well I suppose any CDR approach can "stabilize" - and the most likely for that will be the one found to be least cost during the "Second Manhattan Project". As to whether biochar passes your "Big, Quick, and Surefire test", let me offer these points in biochar's favor for doing so (in addition to my 10-15 Gt C/yr comments above): a. It has the important attribute of half the carbon being available for carbon neutral energy (of any type); most CDR approaches consume energy. b. There is more existing carbon in soils than the atmosphere and above ground biomass combined. And there is a cry for increasing that amount which has been generally going down every year. So there is both room for and a need for the CDR carbon. c. The practice of biochar is applicable to essentially every hectare of the 10+ Gha available. Inland labor is also ready, and already knowledgeable about charcoal. d. There is a (small but growing) flow of funds for energy and soil improvement already for biochar. I believe the remaining needed funds for CDR is as low as for any other approach, including push-pull. e. Looked at from the social science side, I believe there are many more supporters than detractors. I hope that push-pull won't have to face international approval processes, but I think it will. I doubt biochar will have to - hundreds or thousands of biochar tests going on now and no complaints that I know of. f. The biochar name is only 6 + years old; it is not yet well known - but is growing very rapidly (as can be seen at www.biochar-international.org) g. There is a longer list. Ron > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 12:08 AM, Ronal W. Larson <[email protected]> > wrote: > Dr. Calvin: > > My apologies. I failed to add CDR in my list of benefits for biochar. I > failed because CDR is what I usually am pushing on this list. A good example > I found today of where some folks place biochar for quantity and speed (what > you are after) is this figure from a respected ocean acidification source: > > http://www.whoi.edu/OCB-OA/page.do?pid=112161#0 > > Note that biochar is in the upper right hand corner, where we all want CDR to > be. I would put biochar even higher than shown, because 1) it can heavily > impact forestry as well as agriculture, and 2) it can start with ocean as > well as land-based resources. > > See also a few inserts in your response below. > > > <PastedGraphic-1.png> > > > > > On Feb 10, 2014, at 6:46 AM, William Calvin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> For energy production, ocean has a number of possibilities. > [RWL1: Yes, and we should be pushing for all of them. But I don't > believe that many give the three big advantages of biochar produced from the > ocean biomass you are promoting: 1) CDR, 2) energy, 3) out year soil-related > advantages well beyond the initial placement of char in soils. I am just > claiming that putting that produced carbon into soil can provide better > economics and better benefits than putting it back into the ocean. > >> But I am focused on hauling down the atmospheric CO2 in a manner that is >> big, quick, and sure-fire. > [RWL2: Agreed we are way behind schedule. But I think biochar can > move as fast as any technology. All of the developing world understands > charcoal. There are huge employment opportunities. Soil scientists are > available the world over. Pyrolysis is one of the world's oldest > technologies. Projects are going in all over the place - and no-one is > asking for permission of anybody. These are strictly private transactions. > >> No amount of cleaner energy is going to clean up the excess CO2 accumulation >> in the air, though it is a good plan for the long-run. > [RWL3. Again - I apologize for not making it clear that I was on the > same page with you - with ocean resources being used for new biomass > production - primarily done for CDR purposes, but also having the other two > non-competing benefits - one being energy. Actually biochar does reduce the > amount available for energy, but we have enough photosynthesis potential to > handle both global carbon neutral and global carbon negative needs - by a > huge factor (solar input being 10^4 greater than today's global annual energy > consumption). > > I'd still like your opinion on placing the photosynthesis products back > on land rather than back in the ocean. > > > Ron >> >> >> >> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 9:46 AM, Ronal W. Larson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> Dr. Calvin: >> >> 1. I'd like to follow up on your statement below: >>> Better to get nutrients by pumping up and then pumping down the new green >>> stuff --before it can decompose-- into deep waters that take a thousand >>> years to begin resurfacing and then are spread out over 10k years. >> >> >> 2. Since you wrote on this list about push-pull pumping 13 months >> ago, Michael Hayes and others have been talking on this list about >> harvesting the produced ocean biomass and using it on land - probably via >> pyrolysis and biochar. The costs would be greater than for your approach, >> but also the benefits - in useful energy (backup for wind/solar) and soil >> productivity improvement. Also I have seen concerns about your down-pushed >> biomass decomposing at depth. >> >> 3. What are your thoughts on this single pump-up approach - with CDR >> in soils, not deep oceans? >> >> Ron >> >> >> >> On Feb 8, 2014, at 7:08 AM, William Calvin <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Oops, cut and paste left out the rest. Here again: >>> A rather lame assessment. >>> >>> Solar radiation management will have a big problem: an uneven application >>> will rearrange the winds and thus precipitation. Guess who they will blame >>> for the droughts. >>> >>> Doubling forests is the right amount of carbon but keeping it from >>> returning to the air via fire and rot is impractical; we cannot even do it >>> in rain forests. >>> >>> Iron blooms sink only 25% of the carbon into deep water and less than 1% >>> into sediments. Better to get nutrients by pumping up and then pumping down >>> the new green stuff --before it can decompose-- into deep waters that take >>> a thousand years to begin resurfacing and then are spread out over 10k >>> years. >>> >>> -WHC >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Feb 8, 2014 at 5:31 AM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> http://www.lawrentian.com/archives/1002557 >>> >>> Olson gives Spoerl Lecture on geoengineering, climate change solutions >>> >>> <snipped by RWL> >>> -- >>> William H. Calvin >>> [email protected] WilliamCalvin.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 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. >> >> >> >> -- >> William H. Calvin >> [email protected] WilliamCalvin.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 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. > > > > -- > William H. Calvin > [email protected] WilliamCalvin.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 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.
