I think it would be useful to develop a scoring system for comparing CDR approaches . One could develop a list of the desireable attributes and a way to score each CDR approach . The scoring approach might involve distinquished organizations like the Royal Society or be incorporated into the IPCC reports. Those same approaches could reach a consensus on the attributes. The idea is to bring rigor to what now is a set of unsubstantiated assertions about different CDR approaches. These usually feature the positive aspects provided by those doing it leaving a confusing situation that inhibits decision making. The absence of rigor creates results that has yielded solutions that make no sense based upon what we now know. These include BEECS , even worse corn based ethanol, and I would claim also CCS for coal plants. They all reached some political consencus but make little if any scientific sense and will not be part of a sustanable solution. The main point is not to be negative about the past but to suggest moving forward what is needed is more rigor in assessing CDR approaches if we are to have useful decisions in the future.
In any case my criteria for a successful CDR approach are 1 it can scale to remove the amount of CO2 needed ( eg amount can change so can it adjust upward if needed ) 2 the Co2 removed from the atmosphere can be sequestered safely 3 a low and ideally positive social cost of the CDR process per tonne of Co2 removed - social cost = ( the cost of the technology(so called private cost) plus the cost/benefit of the externalities (environmental damage , or loss of agriculture land increase social cost while positively increased productivity of the land or use of CO2 to generate wealth like carbon fiber can actual reduce the social cost below the private cost) ) 4 low and ideally no risk of unintended consequences when practd at large scale (minimal ideally zero impact on other geochemical cycles. 5 low energy use , water use ,and land use land use One could rank order each CDR approach in each category and then rank them overall with the lowest total the best. Note for the record I have had my students in my class at Columbia on Closing the Carbon Cycle rank the various approaches for years and DAC wins hands down. Now I am aware that my involvement could certainly skew the responses that is why i want an independent effort . The royal society did this many years ago and i think it is time to update it. Most importantly if the scientific community remains fractured as it currently is on this issue than progress is unlikely. If it self imposes a discipline and a candor ( eg about BECCS annd Corn Based Ethanol) than there is a possibility a scientific consensus will emerge. If we do not do it nobody will. On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > Agreed, but the issue is how does that and other important ideas get into > CDR policy, roadmapping and PR while seemingly more complex yet limited > approaches like BECCS take center stage - better marketing, lobbyists? > Granted, BECCS generates negative emissions energy, but there are other > methods of doing this, including some that don't rely on biology. Given the > circumstances, do we really have the luxury of ignoring any of these until > they are proven (rather than assumed to be) irrelevant? > Greg Rau > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* "Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf)" <r.d.schuil...@uu.nl> > *To:* "'gh...@sbcglobal.net'" <gh...@sbcglobal.net>; " > geoengineering@googlegroups.com" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> > *Sent:* Sunday, August 20, 2017 2:26 AM > *Subject:* RE: [geo] It’s time to start talking about “negative” carbon > dioxide emissions > > Well, the message is clear, but when I propose the most scalable and > proven process, and probably the cheapest way, not many people seem to > listen. So again: > 1:The weathering of olivine (and some similar rocks as well) has made life > possible on Earth > 2: Life itself (mainly marine life), by practically storing all CO2 as > limestones (made up of the calcite skeletons of corals, shellfish and > plankton) has provided a huge storage capacity for CO2. Carbonate sediments > contain about a million times all the CO2 in seas, the atmosphere and the > biosphere together. > 3. The needed additional storage capacity because we burn in a few hundred > years all the coal, oil and natural gas that has taken hundreds of million > years to form can be found in mining, milling and spreading olivine at > locations which make rapid weathering of olivine possible, like tropical > countries with high rainfall, or beaches with a strong surf, where coarse > olivine grains can be dumped. These grains will collide in the surf, by > which small slivers of olivine are knocked off. We have shown that thee > slivers often are already weathered within ten days in the saline water. > 4. There are much more olivine massifs at the Earth’s surface than we will > ever need to rebalance the input and output of CO2. These massifs can be > mined in open pit mines. In order to minimize transport costs, such olivine > mines should be strategically spread over the Earth and care can be taken > to spread their locations in such a way that developing countries profit > from the employment provided by the mining exploitation. > 5. Spreading olivine grains can be done in such a way that other > advantages of this spreading can also be used. > 6. Olivine is the most common mineral on Earth. > I think that developing many, mostly unproven technologies to counter > climate change is silly, as we have a natural process that has proven its > validity during 4.5 billion years, Olaf Schuiling > > > > > *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googleg > roups.com] *On Behalf Of *Greg Rau > *Sent:* zondag 20 augustus 2017 1:22 > *To:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* [geo] It’s time to start talking about “negative” carbon > dioxide emissions > > > https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/8/18/1616601 > 4/negative-emissions > > "...it’s time for governments to start implementing policies that > incentivize the development of carbon removal technologies. And not just > one-off pilot projects, either, like the one that is *spectacularly > failing in Mississippi* > <https://www.vox.com/2016/7/5/12098504/kemper-ccs-problems-clean-coal>, > but the kinds of policies that will build up an industry that can expand > into gigatons. Just demonstrating that the technology can work is no longer > enough. Time to think about scale." > > GR - esp, thinking beyond land biology. > -- > 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. > -- 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.
