At the risk of further stuffing peoples' mailboxes, I'm reposting this to the
CDR group given the relevance of the ongoing dialogue over at geo.Greg
From: Michael MacCracken <mmacc...@comcast.net>
To: peter.eisenber...@gmail.com; davidkeit...@gmail.com
Cc: geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, November 24, 2017 2:33 PM
Subject: Re: [geo] Re: [CDR] The International Conference on Negative CO2
Emissions » 22-24 May 2018
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> 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/
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. 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+unsubscribe@ 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.
--
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.
--
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.
--
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.
