Just to be clear, we currently emit 37.0 GT CO2/yr, yet in the short term only 17.5 Gt/yr remain in the atmosphere, the rest being removed by natural CDR (reviewed here: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v4/n10/full/nclimate2392.html ). So our net emissions is 17.5 Gt/yr. Cutting this by 90% via enhanced CDR alone would mean removing an additional 15.8 GT CO2/yr over and above the 19.5 Gt/yr already removed, a 81% increase in CDR. Is this sufficient to stabilize air pCO2 or lower pCO2? If the latter then we'd also have to contend with legacy CO2 degassing from the ocean. It should be easier to reduce emissions than increase CDR, but then how is that going? I'd say it's time to find out just how easy or hard additional CDR is, relative to the technical, economic and political difficulties of emissions reduction, and relative to the consequences if the latter strategy continues to seriously underperform. Greg
>________________________________ > From: Mike MacCracken <[email protected]> >To: Greg Rau <[email protected]>; Geoengineering ><[email protected]> >Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2015 8:27 AM >Subject: Re: [geo] Energy Planning and Decarbonization Technology | The Energy >Collective > > > Re: [geo] Energy Planning and Decarbonization Technology | The Energy Collective Let me expand my quick description to be 90% cut in human-induced emissions (on top of all the natural sinks), so natural CDR does not count. And on the proposed removal industry, for $100 per ton of CO2, an awful lot could be done to replace fossil fuels with other sources of energy, or even better efficiency, a huge amount of which could be done for much less, if we’d try. So, nice that there is a CO2 removal approach as a backstop to what the cost of changing energy would be—basically, you are suggesting it should cost less than $100 per ton of CO2 to address the problem. With the new paper in Nature (lead author is a former intern that worked with me at the Climate Institute) that the social cost of CO2 is more than twice the cost of, then it makes huge economic sense to be addressing the problem. So, indeed, let’s get on with it—research plus actually dealing with the issue. Mike On 1/24/15, 1:40 PM, "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 >> >> >> >>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 <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.
