Some technologies have input costs that are experiencing predictable costs falls - eg DAC / olivine grinding, with energy input costs falling according to Swanson's law.
There's probably equivalents in other fields, eg robotic labour, etc. Agricultural robots are a significant field, and will only grow. It would be great to see analysis of expected costs for CDR, based on the assumption that these costs falls are reliable. It's hard to see how the figures can be deemed realistic otherwise. A On 25 Aug 2017 15:55, "Adam Dorr" <[email protected]> wrote: > The timeframe of the analysis is not clear. The article cites estimates of > "upper limits" on CDR methods, but what is the nature of these limits - > economic, physical, biological? Some of these estimates refer to 2100, but > a clear timeframe does not appear to be explicitly declared, so I don't > know how directly comparable all of these estimates on "upper limits" are. > > So once again, I will make my usual observation that these projections > about end-of-century CDR capacity are *absurd* if they do not include a > rigorous accounting of technological advancement in the interim. In > particular, automation via machine labor is likely to *radically* expand > CDR methods that are dependent upon any non-biological factors of > production (e.g. abiotic material inputs, energy inputs, and labor inputs). > See my publications for details. > > - Adam > > On Aug 24, 2017 5:28 AM, "Andrew Lockley" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wene.253/full > > > Slicing the pie: how big could carbon dioxide removal be? > Authors > > - Peter Psarras, > 1. > > > <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/advanced/search/results?searchRowCriteria%5B0%5D.fieldName=author&start=1&resultsPerPage=20&searchRowCriteria%5B0%5D.queryString=%22Peter%20Psarras%22> > - Holly Krutka, > - Mathilde Fajardy, > 1. > > > <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/advanced/search/results?searchRowCriteria%5B0%5D.fieldName=author&start=1&resultsPerPage=20&searchRowCriteria%5B0%5D.queryString=%22Mathilde%20Fajardy%22> > - Zhiqu Zhang, > 1. > > > <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/advanced/search/results?searchRowCriteria%5B0%5D.fieldName=author&start=1&resultsPerPage=20&searchRowCriteria%5B0%5D.queryString=%22Zhiqu%20Zhang%22> > - Simona Liguori, > 1. > > > <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/advanced/search/results?searchRowCriteria%5B0%5D.fieldName=author&start=1&resultsPerPage=20&searchRowCriteria%5B0%5D.queryString=%22Simona%20Liguori%22> > - Niall Mac Dowell, > 1. > > > <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/advanced/search/results?searchRowCriteria%5B0%5D.fieldName=author&start=1&resultsPerPage=20&searchRowCriteria%5B0%5D.queryString=%22Niall%20Mac%20Dowell%22> > - Jennifer Wilcox > - <[email protected]> > 1. > - > > <[email protected]> > > > <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/advanced/search/results?searchRowCriteria%5B0%5D.fieldName=author&start=1&resultsPerPage=20&searchRowCriteria%5B0%5D.queryString=%22Jennifer%20Wilcox%22> > > > - First published:28 July 2017Full publication history > > <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wene.253/full#publication-history> > - DOI:10.1002/wene.253 View/save citation > > <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/exportCitation/doi/10.1002/wene.253> > - Cited by (CrossRef):0 articlesCheck for updates > > <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/enhanced/refreshCitedBy?doi=10.1002/wene.253&refreshCitedByCounter=true> > Citation tools > - > > <https://www.altmetric.com/details.php?domain=onlinelibrary.wiley.com&doi=10.1002%2Fwene.253> > > > - Conflict of interest: The authors have declared no conflicts of > interest for this article. > > Abstract > > The current global dependence on fossil fuels to meet energy needs > continues to increase. If a 2°C warming by 2100 is to be prevented, it will > become important to adopt strategies that not only avoid CO2 emissions > but also allow for the direct removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, > enabling the intervention of climate change. The primary direct removal > methods discussed in this review include land management and mineral > carbonation in addition to bioenergy and direct air capture with carbon > capture and reliable storage. These methods are discussed in detail, and > their potential for CO2 removal is assessed. The global upper bound for > annual CO2removal was estimated to be 12, 10, 6, and 5 GtCO2/year for > bioenergy with carbon capture and reliable storage (BECCS), direct air > capture with reliable storage (DACS), land management, and mineral > carbonation, respectively—giving a cumulative value of ~35 GtCO2/year. > However, in the case of DACS, global data on the overlap of low-emission > energy sources and reliable CO2storage opportunities—set as a > qualification for DAC viability—were unavailable, and the potential upper > bound estimate is thus considered conservative. The upper bounds on the > costs associated with the direct CO2removal methods varied from > approximately $100/tCO2 (land management, BECCS, and mineral carbonation) > to $1000/tCO2 for DACS (again, these are the upper bounds for costs). In > this review, these direct CO2 removal technologies are found to be > technically viable and are potentially important options in preventing 2°C > warming by 2100. *WIREs Energy Environ* 2017, 6:e253. doi: > 10.1002/wene.253 > > -- > 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. > > > -- 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.
