Thanks, Andrew, but I don't share your optimism. Anyone thinking emissions reduction via renewable energy is a slam dunk needs to read this: http://www.theenergycollective.com/schalk-cloete/257351/fundamental-limitations-renewable-energy See also the comments.
We now have less than 1000 Gt of CO2 to emit if we are to prevent a 2 deg C AGW. At current, growing emissions rates we will blow past this mark in about 20 years. While non-fossil energy penetration in this interim will indeed buy us some time, it would seem unwise to assume that renewable energy and emissions reduction are alone are going to save the day. Or shall wait to find out if we exceed the 1000 Gt threshold be before launching a serious R&D program into additional strategies? Greg -------------------------------------------- On Sun, 8/16/15, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote: Subject: Re: [geo] Re: CDR powered by wastewater To: "Greg Rau" <[email protected]> Cc: "geoengineering" <[email protected]>, "Michael Hayes" <[email protected]>, "Sabine Mathesius" <[email protected]> Date: Sunday, August 16, 2015, 11:30 AM Yes but the big issue with RCPs (even 2.6) is just as the IPCC underestimated political indifference, they're underestimating technology progress. Renewables are going to leave fossil fuels in the dust over the next 20 years or so, and smart grids, energy storage and demand management will follow in a neat line - because the market compels it. And whether you've built a 40-year-life coal plant or not, nobody's going to buy your power if it's twice the cost of solar. See this excellent Naam piece on price projections. http://rameznaam.com/2015/08/10/how-cheap-can-solar-get-very-cheap-indeed/ I covered the same issue in the Ecologist - with more focus on the politics and wider economic consequences http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2539993/the_end_of_fossil_fuels_is_not_the_end_of_global_warming.html (this touches on the consequences for SRM policy of reduced aerosol load). We mustn't be like Kodak - the future is coming, whether we plan for it or not. I personally have become far more relaxed about emissions levels over the last few years. The problem will largely solve itself (in time) - but it's not clear whether the climate sensitivity/feedbacks will mean we can get away with the results. The speed of the energy transition still matters. A On 16 August 2015 at 18:28, Greg Rau <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks, Michael. Agree that science is just getting started in conceiving of and testing methods that potentially can complement emissions reduction and help the ocean. But those activities will continue to be stunted by the belief that emissions reduction alone can and will, at this late date, singlehandedly save the day. RCP 2.6 clearly shows that emissions reduction alone isn't enough, and every year that we continue to exceed 2.6's required emissions peak of 37 Gt CO2/yr only increases the need for post-emissions remedies. These remedies will not be forthcoming without the support of the science and policy communities. > Greg > -------------------------------------------- > On Wed, 8/5/15, Michael Hayes <[email protected]> wrote: > > Subject: [geo] Re: CDR powered by wastewater > To: "geoengineering" <[email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, August 5, 2015, 6:49 PM > > Hi > Folks, > The degree of > synergies presented by the MECC method can possibly generate > even further useful products. Why not include phosphorus > recovery as well as biochar in the plan? > The typical tightly focused > "lets just solve for one problem at a time" > approach simply will not be as productive as we need them to > be at the overall mitigation level. > Further, synergistic whole systems > approaches, such as MECC, AWL, olivine, biochar and vast > scale marine biomass production, should be factored into any > evaluations of CDR/CCS/BECCS etc. If the authors of the > papers recently posted by Andrew (Restoration > of the oceans AND Long term response of the oceans to CO2 > removal) were to simply pay attention to the current > (rather important) developments in the CDR field, their > conclusions would be significantly less negative on the > subject of CDR. > The > MECC CDR concept should be highly supported and publicized. > However, we need...all.. plausible CDR concepts supported, > publicized and deployed on large > scales....soon. > Best > regards, > Michael > > On Tuesday, August 4, 2015 at > 10:54:04 AM UTC-7, Greg Rau wrote:Cleans up wastewater, removes CO2, > generates H2, and produces beneficial ocean alkalinity. > What's not to like? > > Greg > > > > http://www.colorado.edu/news/ > releases/2015/08/03/cu- boulder-researchers-use- > wastewater-treatment-capture- co2-emissions-and > > > > http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/ > 10.1021/acs.est.5b00875 > > > > CU-Boulder researchers use wastewater > treatment to capture CO2 emissions and produce energy > > > > August 3, 2015 > > Cleaning up municipal and industrial > wastewater can be dirty business, but engineers at the > University of Colorado Boulder have developed an innovative > wastewater treatment process that not only mitigates carbon > dioxide (CO2) emissions, but actively captures greenhouse > gases as well. > > > > The treatment method, known as Microbial > Electrolytic Carbon Capture (MECC), purifies wastewater in > an environmentally-friendly fashion by using an > electrochemical reaction that absorbs more CO2 than it > releases while creating renewable energy in the process. > > > > “This energy-positive, carbon-negative > method could potentially contain huge benefits for a number > of emission-heavy industries,” said Zhiyong Jason Ren, an > associate professor of Civil, Environmental, and > Architectural Engineering at CU-Boulder and senior author of > the new study, which was recently published in the journal > Environmental Science and Technology. > > > > Wastewater treatment typically produces CO2 > emissions in two ways: the fossil fuels burned to power the > machinery, and the decomposition of organic material within > the wastewater itself. Plus, existing wastewater treatment > technologies consume high amounts of energy. Public > utilities in the United States treat an estimated 12 > trillion gallons of municipal wastewater each year and > consume approximately 3 percent of the nation’s grid > energy. > > > > Existing carbon capture technologies are > energy-intensive and often entail costly transportation and > storage procedures. MECC uses the natural conductivity of > saline wastewater to facilitate an electrochemical reaction > that is designed to absorb CO2 from both the water and the > air. The process transforms CO2 into stable mineral > carbonates and bicarbonates that can be used as raw > materials by the construction industry, used as a chemical > buffer in the wastewater treatment cycle itself or used to > counter acidity downstream from the process such as in the > ocean. > > > > The reaction also yields excess hydrogen > gas, which can be stored and harnessed as energy in a fuel > cell. > > > > The findings offer the possibility that > wastewater could be treated effectively on-site without the > risks or costs typically associated with disposal. Further > research is needed to determine the optimal MECC system > design and assess the potential for scalability. > > > > “The results should be viewed as a > proof-of-concept with promising implications for a wide > range of industries,” said Ren. > > > > Power companies have many reasons to perk > up at the possibility of a carbon-negative wastewater > treatment solution. The Environmental Protection Agency’s > Clean Power Plan, expected to take full effect in the year > 2020, will require power plants to comply with reduced CO2 > emission levels. > > > > The study may also have positive long-term > implications for the world’s oceans. Approximately 25 > percent of CO2 emissions are subsequently absorbed by the > sea, which lowers pH, alters ocean chemistry and hence > threatens marine organisms, especially coral reefs and > shellfish. Dissolved carbonates and bicarbonates produced > via MECC, however, could act to chemically counter these > effects if added to the ocean. > > > > “This treatment system generates > alkalinity through electrochemical means and we could > potentially use that to help offset the effects of ocean > acidification,” said Greg Rau, a senior researcher at the > Institute of Marine Sciences at the University of California > Santa Cruz and a co-author of the study. “This is one of > several environmentally-friendly things this technology > does.” > > > > Many wastewater treatment plants are > located on coastlines, raising the possibility that future > MECC implementation in these facilities could couple both > CO2 and ocean acidity mitigation. > > > > Lu Lu and Zhe Huang, both graduate > researchers in the Department of Civil, Environmental, and > Architectural Engineering at CU-Boulder, co-authored the > study. The National Science Foundation provided funding for > the research. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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.
