I'd be a little careful about the argument made here that CDR will continue to be too expensive to seriously compete with emission reduction. As I've said before (OK, like a broken record), some 18 GT of CO2/yr are currently being removed from the atmosphere via natural CDR, enough to actually seasonally reverse air CO2 growth, and enough to save the planet from a more rapid climate catastrophe. And did I say for a cost of $0.00? Is it really unthinkable that we could very cost-competitively up this CDR quantity while we also strive to reduce emissions? And, shouldn't this natural CDR, rather than way too expensive BECCS, be the poster child for what is possible? As the article in effect concludes, isn't there is a moral hazard in continuing to think that emissions reduction will solve the problem singlehandedly and in time, and therefore why wait to seriously evaluate CDR ideas and potential? Greg
>________________________________ > From: Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> >To: geoengineering <[email protected]> >Sent: Saturday, November 1, 2014 2:14 AM >Subject: [geo] Does CDR provide “moral hazard” for avoiding deep >decarbonization of our economy? | Everything and the Carbon Sink > > > >Poster's note : see images on Web >https://carbonremoval.wordpress.com/2014/10/24/does-cdr-provide-morale-hazard-for-avoiding-deep-decarbonization-of-our-economy/ >Everything and the Carbon Sink >Noah Deich's blog on all things Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) > >Does CDR provide “moral hazard” for avoiding deep decarbonization of our >economy? >OCTOBER 24, 2014 >No. But the fact that some environmentalists question the value of developing >Carbon Dioxide Removal (“CDR”) approaches for this very reason merits greater >analysis. The “moral hazard” argument against CDR goes something like this: >CDR could be a “Trojan horse” that fossil fuel interests will use to delay >rapid decarbonization of the economy, as these fossil interests could use the >prospect of cost-effective, proven, scaleable CDR technologies as an excuse >for continuing to burn fossil fuels today (on the grounds that at some point >in the future we’ll have the CDR techniques to remove these present-day >emissions).The key problem with this “moral hazard” argument is the hypothesis >that “cost-effective, proven, scaleable CDR solutions” are poised to >proliferate at greater rates than GHG emission mitigation technologies (such >as renewable energy and energy efficiency) that are required to decarbonize >our economy. Today, CDR solutions remain largely in their infancy. Installed bio-CCS plants can be counted on one hand, for example, and not a single commercial-scale Direct Air Capture project has been built to date. Renewable energy, however, has had a considerable head start on CDR technologies on reducing costs. Take solar PV systems as an example. As the chart below shows, solar PV panels have dropped in cost from over $75/W to under $0.75/W over the past four decades. >Source: Costofsolar.com >This cost reduction in the price of solar PV panels happens to be exactly what >economic theory would predict. Learning curve models show that that costs of >energy technologies come down in a predictable fashion as cumulative installed >capacity increases. The graph below shows learning curve estimates for a range >of energy technologies. >Source: http://energy.jrc.ec.europa.eu/Pages/ArticlesETD.htm >So what does this mean for the “moral hazard” argument against developing CDR >solutions? >For this “moral hazard” argument to be valid, we would have to believe that >CDR approaches will be able to not only catch up to other renewable >technologies in cost within a short-time frame, but then continue to reduce >costs more quickly. Otherwise, renewable technologies will continue their >inevitable march down their cost curve, and will continue displacing fossil >sources in our energy mix. >Suggesting that CDR approaches will outpace other decarbonization technologies >doesn’t seem particularly plausible. This is because the technologies that >have the “steepest” learning curves are usually those that can be manufactured >and installed in assembly-line type manners (like solar PV panels or fuel >cells, for example). Most CDR technologies do not fit this mold — for example, >large scale bio-CCS projects frequently require many bespoke designs to fit >particular plants/geographies. Direct air capture and small-scale biochar >pyrolyzers fit this assembly-line model better, but there is no reason to >expect these technologies to come down cost curves more quickly than their >renewable complementors.In fact, this learning curve analysis would suggest >that CDR faces the opposite of a “moral hazard” problem — because CDR remains >so far behind other renewable technologies, we will keep building more and >more renewables and neglect to develop CDR, which will seem expensive by comparison. Neglecting CDR in this fashion would be fine if we didn’t need negative emissions as a society. But if we find that negative emissions are necessary in a few decades, and we haven’t started developing CDR technologies? Then we are like to find that the initial CDR deployments are incredibly expensive and thus not politically viable. So there is a strong argument to be made for us to start developing CDR technologiestoday alongside renewable energy technologies, so that if/when we need to start removing carbon from the atmosphere, we have a suite of viable solutions to do so. >In conclusion, it’s simply not worth worrying about a “moral hazard” problem >that we won’t have for at least decades, and are most likely to never have all >— especially when the problems of not developing CDR solutions today could be >much more severe. > -- >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/d/optout. > > > -- 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/d/optout.
