This is quite a nice piece of work from masters students of my alma mater (UM's SNRE)!
My concern, as usual, is that there is no discussion of cost-reduction pathways that take into account a sober and realistic prospectus of immanent technological change - in particular, the combined and recursive effects of low-cost solar energy and NAI machine labor. Ignoring these changes for any analysis on a decadal timescale is a fatal error for any scenario-based assessment, policy, or plan. -- Adam Dorr PhD Candidate University of California Los Angeles School of Public Affairs adamd...@ucla.edu adamd...@gmail.com www.adamdorr.com On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote: > > https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/136610 > > Carbon Dioxide Removal Options: A Literature Review Identifying Carbon > Removal Potentials and Costs > Johnson, Katelyn; Martin, Derek; Zhang, Xilin... [more] > <https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/136610> > 2017 > Abstract: In 2015, nearly 190 countries came together in the historic > Paris agreement to take action in minimizing the impacts of climate change. > However, even with the consensus to cut carbon emissions, the continued > trajectory of global emissions will push global temperatures 2°C past > pre-industrial temperatures. Implementation of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) > options is a way to meet the target. Through an extensive literature > review, ten CDR/storage options were examined to gain a better > understanding of the current state of research regarding the CDR potential > of each option and their relevant costs, as well as the feasibility of > their implementation. As we have concluded that all options require > significant further research, a second major objective was to highlight > where major gaps in research exist in order to help guide further inquiry > in CDR options. Every option was examined extensively and presented in an > individual chapter. Each chapter presents our findings regarding the > CDR/storage potential and economic costs collected for each option. In > addition, each chapter includes a discussion of the technical or natural > process, geographic restrictions, policy implications, benefits and risks > associated with the implementation, as well as recommendations for further > research. The biggest takeaways from the literature review is that this set > of CDR options offer enough removal potential to warrant equal > consideration to other emission reduction measures, all options face > limitations and uncertainties so a diverse portfolio of options should be > pursued, and implementation should occur in a staged manner, in which > options are implemented as they become feasible. [less] > <https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/136610> > Handle: http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/136610 > Other Identifiers: 315 > Subject(s): carbon dioxide removal, negative emissions, climate change, > CO2 > Show full item record > <https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/handle/2027.42/136610?show=full> > > -- > 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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at https://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 geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
