Hi Peter E--
Is there any chance that APS might redo its study and this might lead to
a statement that brings the various views together on the projected cost
of CDR (so capture and storage) at large scale? Is the current NAS study
being considered as a path for this to occur?
Mike MacCracken
On 11/24/17 2:35 PM, Peter Eisenberger wrote:
David ,
First and foremost not only are we on the same side but I consider you
a leader generally and specifically in the issue of SRM and CDR
issues. No one
has more experience than you in those two technologies. Frankly it is
for that reason I have been surprised that you shifted your focus to
SRM , which whether intended or not is a statement itself
given the leadership position you had in CDR/DAC. It is not just my
opinion but also of your DAC colleagues that intentional or not you
convey , consistent with your email response , that you are
pessimistic about the potential of low cost DAC. The irony I find in
this is that from my perspective the impact of that perception on DAC
today is what the APS did ten years ago to you- making assertions that
DAC is costly with no real scientific basis . You seem willing to put
enormous effort into SRM yet have not made the effort to find out for
yourself whether my claims are plausible or not. In fact to be candid
as a physicist I believe you can easily determine for your self by
reading our published patents why GT represents a cost breakthrough in
DAC technology. I invite you to visit me at a time of your convenience
or I believe we can go quite far over the phone. I hope that you will
not say in the future that you have not seen the evidence but make the
more accurate statement that you have not yet sought to get the
evidence with anywhere the same vigor that you have pursued SRM . As I
said I do not understand why you switched your focus before doing so.
In that regard the most experienced companies in processing gases from
the air all have looked at our technology and validated its low cost
potential. In one case they observed us for over five years and
operated our plants. The person leading that effort for one of the
companies quit his job to join us . He is scientist of high
reputation but also arose to a high management level in his company .
I believe you know him and I know he would be glad to talk with you
and tell you as he did others at meeting at ASU and the Virgin Earth
Prize Judges that GT technology can capture CO2 for under $50 /tonne.
He looked at all DAC technologies as did all the other companies and
all have expressed a desire to work with GT.
In addition I think there is a difference between emissions
reductions of the CCS kind (not replacing fossil with solar ) and CDR
even though as you say the CO2 math in the short term seems unaffected.
This is because of the power of learning by doing and that all the
costs come at the end when ones doubling of capacity involve massive
amounts of new plants. Thus for fixed dollar allocation if one invests
it all in DAC/CDR and none in CCS one will get to an ambient co2
concentration sooner and for less money than than doing CCS first and
then CDR. Some people use the cost differential to argue against this
but fail to analyze the learning by doing positive feedback . But
most important at $50 DAC retrofits of CCS plants produce more costly
CO2 and have high costs to get it to where it can be sequestered. The
leading gas companies are coming to this same conclusion.
I argue that the misconception about the cost of DAC, started by the
APS , is causing us to make bad strategic choices for how to address
the threat of climate change -this is not some small academic debate
we are having. I strongly believe future generations will judge us
harshly from us not having the discipline to at least base our actions
on what is knowable if we made the effort to know it. I have told
others I wish i was not associated with a DAC technology so i would
have greater credibility for this important issue. I have pledged not
to take any public money if the call for a strong effort in DAC is
responded to . That and trying to reach out to experts like you is my
attempt to be responsible . My investors have no interest in having
others know that low cost DAC CO2 is achievable.
David , we are on the same side, I greatly respect your capabilities
,and you are playing a very important role in the climate challenge
we face. Let us find a way to get you what you need so you can add
your voice that low cost DAC -say under $50 per tonne is feasible. As
you know I support research on SRM but I am sure you agree with me
that if low cost DAC is achievable it deserves a high priority of
efforts to develop it for large scale deployment and we can ill afford
any further delay .
With best regards,
Peter
On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 12:09 PM, David Keith <davidkeit...@gmail.com
<mailto:davidkeit...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Peter
I’m sorry you’re frustrated. I don’t think your interpretation is
entirely fair.
It would be ridiculous to claim that solar geoengineering is
“necessary”.
I did not make that claim here and I believe I’ve been consistent
on this over years in writing and speaking. I don’t believe I said
anything to contradict that view in this interview. It’s true I
did not specifically say in this interview that this was not true.
But note that this interview this was tightly edited and omitted
many things I often say about governance and about context
including mitigation and carbon removal. For a longer unedited
video that does mention carbon removal see:
https://www.technologyreview.com/video/609398/the-growing-case-for-geoengineering/
<https://www.technologyreview.com/video/609398/the-growing-case-for-geoengineering/>
I have been clear consistently that solar geoengineering has
substantial risks, that it is, at best, a partial supplement to
emissions reductions.
Here’s how I see the trade-off between emissions reductions,
carbon removal, and solar geoengineering.
Emissions reductions are necessary if we want a stable climate. If
we try to continue emissions and offset them with increasing solar
geoengineering the world will walk further and further away from
the current climate with higher and higher risks. One could, in
principle get a stable climate, by continuing emissions and
offsetting them with carbon removal. But I fail to see why it
would make economic or environmental sense to have massive carbon
removal (with its attendant costs and environmental impacts) while
we still have massive emissions. If there is truly a low impact
way to do carbon removal that is significantly cheaper than
emissions reductions, then I would change my view on this. (Yes, I
know you believe you can do carbon removal at some low number like
30 or $50 a ton. I truly hope you’re correct. I simply haven’t
seen the evidence yet.)
While emissions are high I don’t believe there is a meaningful
distinction between emissions mitigation and carbon removal. The
climate can’t tell the difference between a ton not emitted in a
ton emitted and recaptured. So, while emissions are high, I think
we should only put significant effort into large-scale deployment
of carbon removal if it is cheaper than other methods of reducing
emissions, or if it has lower environmental impacts and roughly
the same cost.
Once emissions get down towards zero carbon removal provides a
unique ability to reduce concentrations. Once emissions get to
zero carbon removal can do something that can’t be done by
emissions mitigation or solar geoengineering. That’s part of the
reason I’m very proud to have worked on carbon removal from my
early work on BECCS (early papers, first PhD of the topic) to my
work at Carbon Engineering). I would therefore like to see serious
effort to developing carbon removal even if it is not now cheaper
or otherwise better than emissions reduction. And serious
development will entail limited deployment. It makes sense to do
this during the time emissions are high to buy the option for net
negative emissions once emissions get towards zero.
Finally, solar geoengineering may provide a way to substantially
reduce climate risks during a carbon concentration peak. A peak
defined by continued positive emissions on the front and by carbon
removal on the far side.
Finally, note that, contrary to your assertion, solar
geoengineering does in fact provide some significant reduction in
carbon concentrations
<http://ure.com/articles/nclimate3376.epdf?author_access_token=LJ7xrnEo6oZoRNRYgu7btNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NZqUjovChb9EdabCEcR6GuvZkepQXaPwfxVdn3_EQ1onk9bPWOsX7ETCUW7OvjKbM7syCkanNFs4sG07XAXjcx>.
Peter, I think were roughly on the same side.
I think the work you’re doing is terrific.
Yours,
David
N.B., I am not subscribed to this list so please email me or post
on twitter if you want to continue the conversation.
On Sunday, 19 November 2017 11:34:14 UTC-5, Peter Eisenberger wrote:
David Keith was on TV and did what I have expressed concern
about generally about the advocacy for SRM
He accepted the framework that we will fail to address the
carbon emissions reduction targets , failed to mention the CDR
option he himself helped pioneer and then pushed off concerns
expressed about doing SRM by saying doing nothing
also has risks ( not even mentioning that acidification of the
ocean will continue for sure and the continuing buildup of co2
etc ) . But most importantly he supported the choice as being
between doing nothing or doing SRM which as a previous comment
pointed out will be embraced by those who want to do nothing
that doing this will enable us to avoid the adverse impacts of
climate change and thus is acceptable as a response to climate
change threat
My general point has been and continues to be that if us
scientists allow our advocacy for a particular approach to
determine what we say and not discipline ourselves with
a overall coherent approach we will become (are) part of the
problem and not part of the solution
(Now I know that media can distort messages but I also know
that it is possible upfront to tell them the distortions one
will not accept )
Sent from my iPhone
--
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
<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to
geoengineering@googlegroups.com
<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering
<https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
<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
<mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com
<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>.
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 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.
