Mike's 90% reduction in emissions number was already taking into consideration natural sinks.
Your other points are well taken. On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 10:40 AM, Greg Rau <[email protected]> wrote: > Mike, > If it takes "a 90% cut in CO2 to stop the rise in atmospheric > concentration", we are already more than half way there thanks to natural > CDR. About 55% of our CO2 emissions are mercifully removed from air via > biotic and abiotic processes. So just 35% to go? > As for "CDR replacing the fossil fuel industry", here's one way to do > that: http://www.pnas.org/content/110/25/10095.full , but low fossil > energy prices (or lack of sufficient C emissions surcharge) are unlikely to > make this happen. Certainly agree that we need all hands and ideas on deck > in order to stabilize air CO2. But for reasons that continue to baffle me, > that is not happening at the policy, decision making, and R&D levels it > needs to. > Greg > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Mike MacCracken <[email protected]> > *To:* Geoengineering <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Saturday, January 24, 2015 9:06 AM > *Subject:* Re: [geo] Energy Planning and Decarbonization Technology | The > Energy Collective > > In terms of an overall strategy, it takes of order a 90% cut in CO2 > emissions to stop the rise in the atmospheric concentration, and that has > to happen to ultimately stabilize the climate (and it would be better to > have the CO2 concentration headed down so we don't get to the equilibrium > warming for the peak concentration we reach (recalling we will be losing > sulfate cooling). > > Thus, to really stop the warming, CDR in its many forms has to be at least > as large as 90% of CO2 emissions (from fossil fuels and biospheric losses). > That is a lot of carbon to be taking out of the system by putting olivine > into the ocean, biochar, etc. at current global emissions levels (that are > still growing). The greater the mitigation (reduction in fossil fuel > emissions), the more effective CDR can be--what would really be nice is CDR > replacing the fossil fuel industry so ultimately it is as large. I'd > suggest this is why it is really important to always be mentioning the > importance of all the other ways, in addition to CDR, to be cutting > emissions--that is really critical. > > Mike > > > On 1/24/15, 10:19 AM, "Stephen Salter" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi All > > Paragraph 2 mentions 'carbon negative' nuclear energy. The carbon > emissions from a complete, working nuclear power station are mainly people > driving to work. But digging, crushing and processing uranium ore needs > energy and releases carbon in inverse proportion to the ore grade. There > were some amazingly high grade ores, some once even at the critical point > for reaction, but these have been used. Analysis by van Leeuwen concludes > that the carbon advantage of present nuclear technology over gas is about > three but that the break-even point comes when the ore grade drops to > around 100 ppm. This could happen within the life of plant planned now. > > As we do not know how to do waste disposal we cannot estimate its carbon > emissions. But just because we cannot calculate them does not mean that > they are zero. > > Stephen > > > > Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering. > University of Edinburgh. Mayfield Road. Edinburgh EH9 3JL. Scotland > [email protected] Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195 > WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs <http://WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs> YouTube Jamie > Taylor Power for Change > > On 24/01/2015 14:56, Andrew Lockley wrote: > > > > > > Poster's note : none of this explains why there's any need for > integration. Chucking olivine in the sea seems easier and cheaper than all. > > > > http://theenergycollective.com/noahdeich/2183871/3-ways-carbon-removal-can-help-unlock-promise-all-above-energy-strategy > > > 3 Ways Carbon Removal can Help Unlock the Promise of an All-of-the-Above > Energy Strategy > > > January 24, 2015 > > > > "We can't have an energy strategy for the last century that traps us in > the past. We need an energy strategy for the future - an all-of-the-above > strategy for the 21st century that develops every source of American-made > energy."- President Barack Obama, March 15, 2012 > > > An all-of-the-above energy strategy holds great potential to make our > energy system more secure, inexpensive, and environmentally-friendly. > Today's approach to all-of-the-above, however, is missing a key > piece: carbon dioxide removal ("CDR"). Here's three reasons why CDR is > critical for the success of an all-of-the-above energy strategy: > > > 1. CDR helps unite renewable energy and fossil fuel proponents to advance > carbon capture and storage ("CCS") projects. Many renewable energy > advocates view CCS as an expensive excuse to enable business-as-usual > fossil fuel emissions. But biomass energy with CCS (bio-CCS) projects are > essentially "renewable CCS" (previously viewed as an oxymoron), and could > be critical for drawing down atmospheric carbon levels in the future. As a > result, fossil CCS projects could provide a pathway to "renewable CCS" > projects in the future. Because of the similarities in the carbon capture > technology for fossil and bioenergy power plants, installing capture > technology on fossil power plants today could help reduce technology and > regulatory risk for bio-CCS projects in the future. What's more, bio-CCS > projects can share the infrastructure for transporting and storing CO2 > with fossil CCS installations. Creating such a pathway to bio-CCS should be > feasible through regulations that increase carbon prices and/or biomass > co-firing mandates slowly over time, and could help unite renewable energy > and CCS proponents to develop policies that enable the development of > cost-effective CCS technology. > > > 2. CDR bolsters the environmental case for nuclear power by enabling it to > be carbon "negative": Many environmental advocates say that low-carbon > benefits of nuclear power are outweighed by the other environmental and > safety concerns of nuclear projects. The development of advanced nuclear > projects paired with direct air capture ("DAC") devices, however, could tip > the scales in nuclear's favor. DAC systems that utilize the heat produced > from nuclear power plants can benefit from this "free" source of energy to > potentially sequester CO2 directly from the atmosphere cost-effectively. > The ability for nuclear + DAC to provide competitively-priced, > carbon-negative energy could help convince nuclear power's skeptics to > support further investigation into developing safe and > environmentally-friendly advanced nuclear systems. > > > 3. CDR helps enable a cost-effective transition to a decarbonized > economy: Today, environmental advocates claim that prolonged use of fossil > fuels is mutually exclusive with preventing climate change, and fossil fuel > advocates bash renewables as not ready for "prime time" -- i.e. unable to > deliver the economic/development benefits of inexpensive fossil energy. To > resolve this logjam, indirect methods of decarbonization -- such as a > portfolio of low-cost CDR solutions -- could enable fossil companies both to > meet steep emission reduction targets and provide low-cost fossil energy > until direct decarbonization through renewable energy systems become more > cost-competitive (especially in difficult to decarbonize areas such as > long-haul trucking and aviation). > > > Of course, discussion about the potential for CDR to enable an > all-of-the-above energy strategy is moot unless we invest in developing a > portfolio of CDR approaches. But if we do make this investment in CDR, an > all-of-the-above energy strategy that delivers a diversified, > low-cost, and low-carbon energy system stands a greater chance of becoming > a reality. > > > Noah Deich > > > Noah Deich is a professional in the carbon removal field with six years of > clean energy and sustainability consulting experience. Noah currently works > part-time as a consultant for the Virgin Earth Challenge, is pursuing his > MBA from the Haas School of Business at UC Berkeley, and writes a blog > dedicated to carbon removal (carbonremoval.wordpress.com < > http://carbonremoval.wordpress.com> ) > > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
