Andrew,

BECCS can be deployed at scale with the Allam Cycle: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/05/goodbye-smokestacks-startup-invents-zero-emission-fossil-fuel-power.  I've been watching this technology move from lab to pilot scale (25MW output) for a couple years.

We know we can make enough biogas from anaerobic digestion of seaweed to produce 100% of global energy (~600 quads by 2030).  See authors' version of peer-reviewed publications at the bottom of http://oceanforesters.org/Ocean_Forests.html.

The first few Allam Cycle power plants will use natural gas (or biogas) in order to ensure there are no particulates in the supercritical fluid.  As the technology is refined, it could burn anything.

Mark E. Capron, PE
Ventura, California
www.PODenergy.org
 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [geo] Bullshit in geoengineering discourse
From: "Douglas MacMartin" <macma...@cds.caltech.edu>
Date: Sun, August 06, 2017 5:38 am
To: <peter.eisenber...@gmail.com>, "'Andrew Lockley'"
<andrew.lock...@gmail.com>
Cc: "'geoengineering'" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>

I think it would be more accurate to say that, based on what we know today, we don’t know what the costs of DAC would be if deployed at scale.  I understand that people have made estimates, but it is very hard to reliably forecast costs from things done at 3 or more (?) orders of magnitude smaller scale than would be necessary (it would not be hard to find historical examples of wildly inaccurate cost estimates of either sign of error, indeed I suspect it would be hard to find any comparable examples where cost estimates turned out to have been pretty good). 
 
In that respect I think you’re both wrong (and, no offense, but committing a similar fallacy of over-confidence in extrapolation), and I think it is premature, for example, to base current mitigation decisions on the assumption that DAC will turn out to be cheap.  I think “we” ought to invest vastly more $$ in learning how to scale up technology.
 
Note Jesse, Andy and Pete’s tropes paper too: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000416/full
 
doug
 
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Peter Eisenberger
Sent: Sunday, August 06, 2017 6:04 AM
To: Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>
Cc: geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [geo] Bullshit in geoengineering discourse
 
I am not sure  if this approach does not risk making the same mistake that critics of geopengineering  do in using real examples of absurd arguments and then generalize 
to discredit others that are not worthy. I agree with some of your list but I personally know that it cam easily be proven scientiifically that DAC can be deployed at the scale needed 
to achieve the objectives of CDR and do so withiout any unintended risks that plaqued attempts like SRM. In fact DAC made it to your list because of the same type of n on scietific attacks that currrently plaque approaches like SRM. Non scientific statements like DAC will be too costy and moral hazard arguments have been used to create accepted myths about DAC to the extent it mde it on to your list(with equivocation)  .
 
 I have made the point before that scientific community supporting the risk of climate change started the non scientific approach in response to attacks by climate deniers by over stating what models could predict. 
Because the climate system is a complex system by definition the "butterfly" risk exists. The risk that our rapid rate of Co2 change will initiate a mode that will cause great destruction definitely exists but it is essentially scientifically impossible to predict because from the currrent state a large number of future  paths exist which cannot at this time distinquish between and state with any meanigful accuracy whci state will actually emerge . This is just basic physics . So I claim scientifcally it is our ignorance of what risk we are actually taking by changing the CO2 concentration that is scientifically sound .  The claims that the modelling community can make assessments of the future state with scientically meaningful accuracy that reduces the existing risk of our lack of knowledge of the future is not scientifically sound. From many discussions i have had many agree with this but will not speak for fear of giving comfort to climate deniers. In turn of course I know seveal first class physicists that are offended by the climate predicitions made for the reason I stated and thus the non defensible predictions. This is  partly responsible for creating  the more scientific minded deniers. I employ everyone to refrain from exaggerated and non scientifically defensible statements. If science loses its objectivity we are truly in trouble.   
 
I am a strong supporter of research on SRM and other geoengineering approaches though I am skeptical that one will ever be able to remove the risks their deployment might create for reasons related to the above arguments. In fact I woulld like to be proven incorrect since if it were the case it would mean we understand things much better than we do now and that would be great.My reaction to the above is that it is easier for us to design the future than predict it. By this I mean we can develop capabilities like DAC and CDR and renewable energy and possible even SRM  so we can actually damp out any mode that threatens to grow and cause great destruction. That such an adaptive system is easier create than to  be able to predict the future with any meaningful accuracy. Having said that I want to be clear I also think modelling is valuable for it will help us identify early signs of modes that if allowed to grow could destabilize our climate. They can be used to create a so called planning horizon in which time we can be confident how the system will evolve. 
 
I hope we can all come together and instead of arguing with each other have a scientificaly sound debate where we all seek the best knowledge we can achieve independent of what that turns out to be. That is what science is about and we should all commit to doing it.  
 
On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 1:06 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote:
I've been taking this MOOC in bullshit, from the University of Washington
 
Simply put, bullshit is variously defined as (paraphrased)
- Arguing persuasively, with total ignorance of (or indifference to) factual accuracy
- Deliberately misleading (mis)use of facts and data
 
I'm planning a paper on "Bullshit in geoengineering discourse".
 
I've identified the following common examples of bullshit, common in our field. I'd like to open up the discussion to the list, to provide more examples, and any favorite examples of the below (or new) bullshit arguments. I've listed advocates of the arguments, where these are top-of-mind
- Geoengineering allows continued emissions (BAU) - Freakonomics
- Scientists working on CE are offering it as an alternative to mitigation
- Terrestrial BECCS can be deployed at scale - Paris
- Termination shock is a likely socio-technical risk from SRM
- DAC is a viable strategy at for at-scale CDR (controversial?)
- SRM will cause monsoon failure
- SRM will be deployed at a scale leading to widespread drying
- Geoengineering could cause a snowball earth (snowpiercer)
- Moral hazard exists in the form conventionally described
- Greenfinger scenarios are likely (controversial?)
- CDR can be used late-century, as an alternative to near-term mitigation (Paris)
 
 
Thoughts are welcome
 
A
--
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.


 
--
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: This email message and all attachments contain confidential and privileged information that are for the sole use of the intended recipients, which if appropriate applies under the terms of the non-disclosure agreement between the parties.
--
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.

--
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.

Reply via email to