Forwarded due to tech gremlins : *From:* Robert H. Socolow *Sent:* Friday, August 25, 2017 10:57 AM *To:* '[email protected]'; [email protected]; Greg Rau *Cc:* Geoengineering; [email protected] *Subject:* RE: [geo] The influence of learning about (CDR) on support for mitigation policies
Klaus: You formulate the problem well. The question, however, is what “the long run” means. When will we run out of “old” coal plants? Certainly not before we stop building new coal plants. And “we” is not the U.S. The argument for CCS is that coal-plant construction has hardly abated yet. Steve Davis’s and my article on “committed emissions” in Environmental Research Letters is now a couple of years old, but at least as of then the number of new coal plants built each year globally was monotonically increasing. As you know, I am not optimistic that CCS can be married to new coal, because neither the environmentalists nor the coal industry will support it. But there are good arguments for trying to make the marriage happen. Buying down the costs of CCS is a fool’s errand only if the nations of the world actually are firmly committed to a dramatic reduction in the rate of arrival of climate change, rather than only saying that they are. I advocate mixing worst-case thinking into an optimist’s brew. My view hasn’t changed that avoiding five degrees is the highest priority task, and getting to two rather than three is next. The progress over the past decade with wind and solar is astonishing, and if similar progress can be achieved with storage and system innovation (including demand management), coal may really be over. We need to pay attention to choices made by India and its neighbors, as well as by Africa, over at least the next decade and put priority on R&D and policy that will tip the scales. Moreover, If storage and system innovation arrive slowly, wind and solar will penetrate more quickly in concert with natural gas, which will continue to assure dispatchability as it does now, and then the marriage of CCS with natural gas will become important. In short, it is dangerous to pretend that it’s already OK to devote our entire attention to two degrees. The education our energy analysis community has received regarding CCS over the past decade extends to DAC as well. The storage part was initially essentially too cheap to meter. It is now regarded as formidable. If there is an end run, for example based on CO2 reuse as fiber, then that makes CCS for coal less unattractive as well. (Fiber will come from coal before it comes from air, won’t it?) In short, I recommend caution before joining advocacy of DAC and denigration of CCS. They are synergistic campaigns, both facing steep uphill climbs and to a considerable extent for the same reasons. Rob On 24 Aug 2017 09:18, <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Renaud, Andrew > cc the others > > hope this message reaches you; so far I was not able to send (reply-) > messages to [email protected], for whatever reason. > > See the attached paper on radiative cooling through the atmospheric window > I presented last month at a conference in San Diego. > We've worked on this (besides our ongoing efforts to carbonate magnesium > silicates) since 2007, my co-author's dr thesis from 2016 can be found here: > https://www.doria.fi/handle/10024/125709 > > I am happy to see that this approach makes it into the IPCCs AR7! > > greetings from Turku > Finland (currently flooded by the BECCS lobby) > > RoNz > > Quoting Renaud de RICHTER <[email protected]>:yesterday > > As written yesterday in another post by Phil Williamson (Science >> Coordinator: UK GGR programme), the UK recently-started a *Greenhouse Gas >> Removal *research programme (http://www.nerc.ac.uk/researc >> h/funded/programmes/ggr/). >> >> >> >> Hopefully in the *sixth IPCC report*, they will state that to stay below >> 2degC warming (unfortunately it will already be to late to say below >> 1.5degC warming), both emissions reduction *and GGR* are required, not >> either/or, and should include both the continents *and the oceans*. >> >> Concrete, realistic and feasible CE methods to remove CH4 and other >> non-CO2 >> GHGs from the atmosphere at a climatically significant scale have been >> proposed [1] <http://www.earth-syst-dynam.net/8/1/2017/esd-8-1-2017.pdf> >> and [2] <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S036012851 >> 6300569>, >> and still wait for honest evaluation, critics and discussion from the >> scientific community. >> >> >> >> And sadly, in the *seventh IPCC report*, they will state that to stay >> below *3degC >> warming*, both complete cessation of anthropogenic emissions due to the >> burning of fossil fuels and GGR are required, not either/or, and that >> *other >> technologies able to enhance outgoing longwave radiation to the outer >> space* >> should be developed and applied, like radiative cooling by the atmospheric >> window (8-13 µm), or reducing the coverage of high cirrus clouds. >> >> ?*Earth radiation management*? technologies have already been proposed [3] >> <http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032113008460> and >> still wait for honest evaluation, critics and discussion from the >> scientific community. >> >> >> >> 2017-08-22 21:14 GMT+02:00 Greg Rau <[email protected]>: >> >> Thanks, Peter. Just to amplify, the IPCC states that to stay below 2degC >>> warming and esp below 1.5degC warming, both emissions reduction and CDR >>> are >>> required, not either/or. So how about the concept that emissions >>> reduction >>> presents a "moral hazard" to (required) CDR development? >>> >>> In any case, if even thinking about CDR (let alone doing it) is perceived >>> by humans as a threat to emissions reduction (Campbell-Arvai et al., >>> 2017), >>> it's game over. We have to do both. I seriously doubt that humans are >>> truly incapable of doing 2 things at once, but if they are we're toast >>> (IPCC). >>> Greg >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> *From:* Peter Eisenberger <[email protected]> >>> *To:* Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> >>> *Cc:* geoengineering <[email protected]> >>> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 22, 2017 1:40 AM >>> *Subject:* Re: [geo] The influence of learning about (CDR) on support for >>> mitigation policies >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> 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. >> >> > > > > --------------------------------------------- > Ron Zevenhoven /dr. tech. /professor > Åbo Akademi University /Thermal and flow engineering > Biskopsgatan 8, FIN-20500, Åbo/Turku, Finland > +358 2 2153223 / mobile +358 50 3704810 > http://www.abo.fi/vt + http://users.abo.fi/rzevenho > > Editor: Chemical Engineering Research & Design > Editor: Journal of CO2 Utilization > Advisory Editor: Greenhouse Gases - Science and Technology > Review Editor: Frontiers in Energy Research /CCSU > > -- 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.
