Not all technologies reduce in price with production scale. Firstly, input costs can be controlling factors (ie energy for DAC). Secondly, the innovation step may reduce in costs with production scale, but that step itself may be small. EG Carbon Engineering uses a lot of off the shelf technology, which is already produced at scale. Their assembly, etc. may reduce in price, but there's no guarantee of any major cost change resulting.
Andrew On 15 Aug 2017 10:03, "Peter Eisenberger" <peter.eisenber...@gmail.com> wrote: > There is an important nuance about the scaling of DAC . Most > petro-chemical technologies get less costly the larger the plant with > empirical relations that the costs scale with the size to a power less than > one -usually between .6 and .8 . Those scaling laws apply to cases were the > machinery gets bigger - eg bigger reactors, bigger pumps etc . However in > those cases the scaling can impact the process kinetics where the kinetics > can change as one changes ratios of surface to volume and so one can run > into difficulty in trying to extroplate because the performance can be > adversely impacted at larger scale. DACS at least in the case of our > technology at global thermostat is modular where as the size increases one > just adds more modules, there is no impact on performance . In that case > the cost reduction comes not with the size of a plant but the overall > production of the units -eg the cost reductions gotten by mass production > just like solar PV technology > > But more important for the case of DACS is the somewhat counterintuitive > fact that DACS is much easier to make commercial than solar or wind has > been and thus much less extrapolation is needed about future costs . . Thus > one needs to extrapolate less and be much more optimistic than one might > believe. The reason for this are twofold. In the case of solar the first pv > systems used in space were about 10,000 times to costly for widespread > commercial penertration. This was because it involved new materials > technology and was competing with a very well developed and low cost > alternative called fossil fuel. So it started very high in cost and had to > go very low to be commercial . > > In the case of DACS even if you do not want to beleive our costs for a > first plant of $100 per tonne and want to accept theClimeworks $600 per > tonne or to make the point even more say it was $1000 > Now in thsi case the product produced is carbon and carbon in the form of > oil or natural gas is very valuable -has a high cost because of its use to > make energy. So if you look at the cost of carbon in a barrel of oil > that is $50 dollars a barrel than the cost of of the118 kg of carbon is > roughly $425 per tonne . This is equivalent to about $120 per toone of Co2 > . So even at $1000 per tonne for Co2 the cost is only one order of > magnitude to costly. if you accept our numbers we are altready competitive. > > Probably one other piece information is needed to complete this picture > . If one statrs with oil/gas or starts with Co2 the energetics and > reactions are well known how to produce the same chemicals or materials > (plastic, carbon fiber)at laarge scale. There is not much difference in > cost ( eg have to break carbon hydrogen bonds in oil/gas or break carbon > oxygen bonds in CO2 ) . In fact going from CO2 to carbon fiber takes about > 1/3 the energy compared to steel and alumimum to seperate from their ores > when done of the basis of providing equivalent structual strength. That is > a car or plane made from carbon fiber will weigh much less to provide the > same structural performance and that amount of carbon fiber will take less > energy to produce than the steel or aluminum it repalces. > > So in what I call mining carbon form the sky via DACS and mining carbon > from the ground via fossil fuels it turns out DACs even by the incorrect > high cost estimates is less than an order of magnitude too costly and we at > Global thermostat claim we are already there and will demostrate that in > 2018 . But as I said time is not on our side so I wish those concerned > about the climate risk would take DACS seriously. As I wrote previously > anyone with an open mind and technical expertise can read our patents and > understand why we have made a breakthrough in the cost of DACS - and as > stated above even the most pessismistic assesments suggest that a factor of > ten decrease is more than feasible. > > History will look at all this disbelief with amazement. > > On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 4:38 AM, Douglas MacMartin < > macma...@cds.caltech.edu> wrote: > >> 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@googleg >> roups.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 >> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2OtU5vlR0k >> >> >> >> 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. >> > > > > -- > 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.
