I wonder if in the development of models for http://www.kiel-earth-institute.de/CDR_Model_Intercomparison_Project.html if there are cost/likelihood comparisons of CDR proposals.
Brian On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 3:48:59 AM UTC-4, Peter Eisenberger 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 <gh...@sbcglobal.net > <javascript:>> 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.sc...@uu.nl <javascript:>> >> *To:* "'gh...@sbcglobal.net <javascript:>'" <gh...@sbcglobal.net >> <javascript:>>; "geoengi...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>" < >> geoengi...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>> >> *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:* geoengi...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> [mailto: >> geoengi...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>] *On Behalf Of *Greg Rau >> *Sent:* zondag 20 augustus 2017 1:22 >> *To:* geoengi...@googlegroups.com <javascript:> >> *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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to geoeng...@googlegroups.com >> <javascript:>. >> 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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com >> <javascript:>. >> 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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com >> <javascript:>. >> 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.
