Here is the New Republic article linked by Noah DeichThe Climate Agreement in
Lima Isn't Enough. Here's a Better Solution.
| |
| | | | | | | |
| The Climate Agreement in Lima Isn't Enough. Here's a Bet...This new
technology stands a better chance of reducing carbon in the atmosphere. |
| |
| View on www.newrepublic.com | Preview by Yahoo |
| |
| |
Direct Air Capture could provide CO2 input to grow algae at sea, as a
profitable scaleable negative emission technology. That is the sort of thing a
new Manhattan Project should study. But the article shows that the global
climate negotiation process is preventing such essential research by holding
the planet hostage to its flawed theories of social and political science
around impossible global agreements on emission reduction.
Robert Tulip
From: Peter Flynn <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]; geoengineering <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, 21 December 2014, 5:35
Subject: RE: [geo] The flawed appeal of unilateral Direct Air Capture programs
to prevent climate change | Deich
#yiv2275964106 #yiv2275964106 -- _filtered #yiv2275964106
{font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv2275964106
{font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv2275964106
#yiv2275964106 p.yiv2275964106MsoNormal, #yiv2275964106
li.yiv2275964106MsoNormal, #yiv2275964106 div.yiv2275964106MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv2275964106 a:link,
#yiv2275964106 span.yiv2275964106MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2275964106 a:visited, #yiv2275964106
span.yiv2275964106MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2275964106 p
{margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv2275964106
span.yiv2275964106EmailStyle18 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv2275964106
.yiv2275964106MsoChpDefault {} _filtered #yiv2275964106 {margin:72.0pt 72.0pt
72.0pt 72.0pt;}#yiv2275964106 div.yiv2275964106WordSection1 {}#yiv2275964106 I
find it discouraging that so much commentary on climate change and its subset,
geoengineering, is focused on “that won’t work”, with its subset, “how will we
govern that”. I think of World War II, where humans found ways to take action
with a smaller chorus of negativity. One constant element in such commentary is
that any action (sometimes even research) will decrease the incentive for
emissions reduction, and hence such action should be not taken. I reflect on
King Canute who, when wanting to convince subjects of the limitations of his
power, went to the surf and ordered the tide not to come in. Let those
convinced of the reliable efficacy of CDR travel to China and India to convince
the masses that they shouldn’t buy a car, and report back. I hope we can reduce
worldwide emissions, but saying we shouldn’t have research and demonstration of
thoughtful contingency options strikes me as reckless. I would love to see a
demonstration scale direct capture program in any country; it would add to the
body of knowledge about the numerous choices that lie in the future. Ditto re a
biochar demonstration scale project. Ditto re many others. And I would love to
see some of the energy that goes into seemingly endless discussions of
governance shift into populating our knowledge of options. Peter Flynn Peter
Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for
EngineersDepartment of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of
[email protected]: 928 451 4455
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: December-20-14 9:44 AM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] The flawed appeal of unilateral Direct Air Capture programs to
prevent climate change | Deich Poster's note : view online for useful graphs.
https://carbonremoval.wordpress.com/2014/12/20/the-flawed-appeal-of-unilateral-action-to/The
flawed appeal of unilateral Direct Air Capture programs to prevent climate
changeDECEMBER 20, 2014
For the past 20 years, UN-led climate change negotiations have failed to
produce an accord that halts the rise of global GHG emissions. Given this track
record, it’s easy to see the appeal of the idea proposed in a recent New
Republic article: that the US alone could prevent climate change by investing
heavily in large-scale carbon dioxide removal (“CDR”) deployments.The idea in
the article goes something like this: the US (and/or some of its developed
country allies) would fund a “Manhattan Project” for Direct Air Capture (“DAC”)
systems. DAC systems scrub CO2 from ambient air; the resulting CO2 can then be
buried deep underground, where it would be trapped in impermeable rock
formations. If DAC system costs fell substantially, the US alone could fund
massive “artificial” forests that offset large portions of global GHG
emissions.Unfortunately, there are three major problems with this plan:Problem
#1: The hypothetical costs of the “mature” DAC systems described in the article
are likely an order of magnitude too low. The article claims that:“If $30/ton
were indeed possible, the U.S. government could construct huge forests of
“artificial trees” in American deserts and absorb 30 percent of 2013’s carbon
emissions for about $90 billion per year…”The problem here is that the author
is quoting figures in $/t Carbon (and not $/t CO2) as is done in the rest of
the article: 30/t Carbon translates to a price of less than $10/t CO2 (as a CO2
molecule weighs over three times as much as a molecule of pure C). Today,
simply injecting CO2 underground and making sure it doesn’t come back up — a
relatively mature process thanks to decades of enhanced oil recovery efforts —
costs around $10/t CO2. Even the biggest proponents of the field say that DAC
systems are unlikely to cost less than $50-$100/t CO2 even when mass produced.
Asking the US to pursue a $0.5-$1T unilateral DAC program seems significantly
less feasible than the <$100B program outlined in the article…Problem #2: The
reliance on the “silver bullet” of DAC systems. There are numerous proposals
for CDR systems, nearly all of which are expected to cost less than DAC
systemsThis isn’t to say that we shouldn’t invest in developing cost-effective
DAC systems, but rather that we should invest in a broad portfolio of CDR
approaches alongside other GHG mitigation techniques such as renewable energy
and energy efficiency. Instead of a Manhattan Project for DAC systems, a better
recommendation would be to scale up ARPA-E, SunShot, and other existing applied
research programs in a way that incorporates CDR approaches and can find the
most cost-effective portfolio of solutions to mitigating climate change. Which
all leads to…Problem #3: The biggest problem of all with the article is the the
framing that a CDR research program would be a “hedge” against international
climate negotiations not working. Instead, a robust CDR research agenda could
serve as a major enabler of the success of international climate negotiations.
Unilateral investments in CDR and other GHG mitigation techniques can help
parties signal that they are committed to making significant GHG emission
reductions, and will not free-ride off of other countries’ efforts. The article
claims that climate change is not a “repeatable” game, but climate change
negotiations are such a repeated game. Signaling individual commitments and
building trust are then critical for the players in this “prisoners dilemma” to
cooperate, and investments in CDR should be seen as a complement, not a hedge,
to enable this cooperation.Bottom line: the idea of massive “artificial
forests” may be an intellectually appealing way of preventing climate change,
but the reality of the situation is that a broad portfolio of CDR and other GHG
mitigation approaches developed through international collaboration still looks
more promising — even with the disappointing failures of this approach to
date.--
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.
--
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.
