Hi Mike , The key issue is your sentence "While CDR can get started now, scaling up seems likely to take a bit of time, though this depends mainly on level of commitment." . A serious Manhatten Project Level Project or Going to the moon effort would make an assessment of the time versus commitment level for the only known solution at this time that can scale -DAC where the carbon is either stored in a material (carbon fiber or cement and sequestered or sequestered directly The number of units needed are comparable and less than many things we already mass produce by sigificant ratios - a shipping container sized unit of GT technology captures 2000 tpy and is amenable to mass production . :For 40 giga tonnes pyr capacity one would need 20 million units -there are currently 17 million shipping containers used in the world . Today GT has made two such units in a year say which is conservative estimate for installed capacity for the industry as a whole .To make the 20 million one would need would take 22 doublings of capacity. If one had a conservative 2 yr doubling time this would take 44 years and if it was a global emergency so one had a high doubling time of 1 year it would take us only 22 years to install 40 gigatonnes per year capacity with us making 4 million units per year at the end - we currently make 60 million new cars per year . The capital cost to make a DAC 2000 tpy unit is about $500,000 which in the end would cost 2 trillion dollars or close to 1 % of GGDP at that time and like solar it would create jobs. My only point is that these are not unreasonable numbers and most importantly no one has tried to do a serious assessment , yet many make statements as if it is obvious that the needed capacity cannot be reached in a timely fashion . But even more significant is that we seem content with a research effort rather than an implementation effort yet we claim we are in an emergency . As I am prone to say - the only barrier to CDR to remove the needed capacity (we know how to do it and that it is affordable) is to decide to do it.
Peter On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Michael MacCracken <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Peter--You might be interested that at the hearing Rep. Veasey (ranking > Democratic member on one of the subcommittees at the hearing--see > https://veasey.house.gov) indicated that he would soon be putting forward > a bill pursuing CDR research/efforts. He has a Subcommittee on Energy > minority staffer, Joe Flarida, working on this issue who sounds both quite > well-informed and also interested in getting input ( > [email protected]). While there was discussion about might be > done on SRM, I did not get the impression that a bill on that was as far > along. > > On SRM & CDR issue, both are certainly needed. While CDR can get started > now, scaling up seems likely to take a bit of time, though this depends > mainly on level of commitment. SRM is indeed not a long-term approach, but > it can be an approach that I think could be applied early in low deployment > levels while mitigation and CDR are building up and getting emissions > toward zero. I think this notion of waiting decades to get started makes > little sense, because of the climate change and impacts that will occur in > the interim, the shock that sudden and significant SRM deployment would > induce, and that by that time it would be nice to have mitigation and CDR > phased up a good bit (so CO2 emissions down, or at least no longer rising). > Ultimately, we of course prefer having CDR be the dominant approach--for me > the question is having a comprehensive effort that recognizes what needs to > get done and what the capabilities are and deployments can be over time. > > Mike > > On 11/11/17 2:24 PM, Peter Eisenberger wrote: > > Hi Doug, > I wish your statement was factually true but I can provide if you want > many examples of people adovcating SRM using the status of CDR to justify > its need . Furthermore with all respect > even your statement that CDR is in the same state -eg need for research as > CDR is just factually incorrect . CDR is ready to be implemented , it does > not carry the risk of unintended consequences , and as opposed to SRM it > can > address the climate challenge whereas the best SRM can do is provide more > time to address it. This is why I wrote that I too support research on SRM > but do so making clear that CDR is both a higher priority and more advanced > by far than SRM > If we were as we should be all on the same team focussed on addressing the > threat we all agree exists than all who support research on SRM would also > make clear that it is a lower priority than CDR . > Furthermore as i wrote the failure to do that will result in a diffusion > of effort so that we will make incremental progress on many fronts without > a commtted response on any single effort thus unwittingly > delaying the critical large scale effort needed while we do research and > thus losing precious time we can ill afford to do . Unfortunately this is > not an academic issue and in the future experts will look at what we have > done and what was really known at the time and come to their own > conclusion. I hope we do not have to wait for that judgment and somehow > develop the internal capability to develop a consensus on a prioritized > plan to address the threat we face. At this time we need to go beyond > letting a thousand flowers bloom which in itself is paradoxical with the > argument that we have no time to waste . > > I of course am willing to be shown that my logic is flawed and engage in > respecful dialogue with you or anyone that would argue against 1 that CDR > is higher priority than SRM , and 2 we need to have an internal effort to > develop a prioritized program for addressing the threat we face. > Peter > > On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Douglas MacMartin < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Peter - I think that the risks of future climate change are sufficiently >> concerning that it would be premature to stop all research on some options >> on the assumption that other options are 100% guaranteed to suffice. I >> think that pretty much everyone who thinks we need to research SRM also >> thinks we need to research CDR quite aggressively. So when you try to set >> things up as an “us vs them” framing, I don’t think you are doing justice >> to anyone’s perspective that I know (and I think I can safely say that I >> know pretty much everyone who works on SRM). Relax; we’re all on the same >> team, and this isn’t a competition. >> >> >> >> Doug >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto:geoengineering@googleg >> roups.com] *On Behalf Of *Peter Eisenberger >> *Sent:* Saturday, November 11, 2017 12:46 PM >> *To:* Greg Rau <[email protected]> >> *Cc:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Climate science foe Lamar Smith - geoengineering is >> ‘worth exploring.’ >> >> >> >> The sophisticated opposition to climate change initiated by George Bush >> Senior is to appease by supporting imcreased knowledge >> >> and thus avoid the need to act. This is just the most awkward and least >> nunanced of this pattern -or may I say another example of how far from >> knowledge based our political dialoque has become . >> >> >> >> I have stated my view that those who make the case for SRM by >> diminishing the status and potential for CDR to address the challenge of >> climate change are unwittingly >> >> playing into the hands of those opposed to action. A coordinated >> community focussed on the threat and not their individual idea would insist >> that CDR be funded and aggressively pursued >> >> before pursuing SRM - or at least would begin every interaction with the >> statement that CDR is a much higher priority. >> >> >> >> On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Greg Rau <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> > >> > http://grist.org/briefly/climate-science-foe-lamar-smith- >> says-geoengineering-is-worth-exploring/ >> > >> > >> “Despite Smith’s endorsement of geoengineering, his opening statement >> made it clear that he’s still unwilling to talk about the reasons why the >> technology is being researched in the first place: “The purpose of this >> hearing is to discuss the viability of geoengineering … The hearing is not >> a platform to further the debate about climate change.” >> >> GR Just in case the climate change hoax is a hoax? >> >> -- >> 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> 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]. >> 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. >> > > > > -- > 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]. > 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. > > > -- 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]. 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.
