Peter,
The idea of scoring CDR methods is, in my view, a good way forward. Your set
of criteria is a good start. I would suggest that the criteria be
qualitatively linked to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the
related targets. After all the world has agreed to pursue the SDGs as the
common goals for the kind of world we want to live in. That being the case,
CDR methods have to fit into those goals one way or an other. By
quantitatively linking, the adjectives like “low” that you have used in your
criteria can be better defined/quantified…
Janos
=======================
Janos Pasztor
Senior Fellow, Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs
Executive Director, Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative (C2G2)
2 rue du Temple, CH-1180 Rolle, Switzerland
Mobile: +41-79-739-5503
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> | Tw: @jpasztor | Skype: jpasztor
www.c2g2.net<http://www.c2g2.net>
On 21 Aug 2017, at 09:48, Peter Eisenberger
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
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
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> 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)" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
To: "'[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>'"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>;
"[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>"
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
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: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>]
On Behalf Of Greg Rau
Sent: zondag 20 augustus 2017 1:22
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: [geo] It’s time to start talking about “negative” carbon dioxide
emissions
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/8/18/16166014/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
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>.
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
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>.
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
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>.
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
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>.
To post to this group, send email to
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>.
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
