Andrew , I do not understand your comment on mny levels 1 If climate risk is real then solving it costs less than is spent on defense - 50 dollars per tonne for 40 gigatonnes is two trillion dollars in 2075 by which time the global economy will have grown to well over 200 trillion so this is less tha 1% - I spend mote than that on earth quake insurance 2 but also at $50 dollars per tonne the carbon content on CO2 is equal to $23 per barrel oil. So like in solar CO2 will replace oil as our carbon feedstock and thus stimulate economic growth but even more interesting is that one can convert CO2 into various carbon intnesive solids like carbon fiber (already bee demonstrated see Stuart Licht) and calculations show if we build our infrastructure out of carbon intensive materials we can remove the anount of CO2 needed to coreect our overshoot created because of time it took to convert to solar . Once one makes the correction staying at a fixed CO2 atmospheric content is a piece of cake and the sustainable renewable energy and carbon economy will be sustainable. 3 Finally it is the large scale that guarantees that one will reach low cost - In fact estimates are that the low cost learning curve limit for DAC is under $25 dollars per tonne .
Peter On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 11:48 PM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote: > It's all very well talking about cost per tonne, but it disguises scale. > We need to remove 1-2tn tonnes (total emissions before fossil > obsolescence). That's 50tn dollars - more if you remove the whole lot. > > I, personally, regard spending on that scale as politically undeliverable > - and possibly economically undeliverable, too. > > A > > On 18 Jan 2018 02:25, "Peter Eisenberger" <peter.eisenber...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Doug >> >> I understand what you are saying and why you are saying it. >> But here is my argument why "will" is approrpriarte and that we have >> proved it. This will expand on what Leon wrote which I agree with. >> >> As background I ran a solar energy group in the late 80's and at that >> time I used the past history of solar and learning curve theory to predict >> that it would be about 2014 when solar PV would be competitive with fossil >> eletricity and that the learning curve limit based upon the materials used >> would be 1to 2 cts per kwhr. I could do that because the basic phenomnea >> was very well understood so that the limits of performance could be >> specified and most importantly there were no show stoppers -some problem >> when discovered could not be solved. The latter is critical because that >> means we know us humans working on the problem long enough will make it >> work - we have done it literally thousand of times. It is amazing but true >> that statistically if we expend enough effort for something that can work >> we will make it work. Moores Law for chip density is another example of >> this phenomena. As to the rate of learning it is true that one has faster >> and solwer periods of progress than the average rate of learning but over >> along enough time they seem to average out . This is clearly the case for >> solar but one has to be careful because the rate is determined by effort >> and not time-so the fast rate of cost reduction recently is probably a >> result of the rapid rate in PV units made . >> >> So in the same sense as solar PV I assert that we have found a DAC >> process that differs in clearly understandable ways from other approaches >> that is on a learning curve that has a conservative cost limit of $25 and >> some might argue $10. This is gotten by assuming mass production (this >> technology is amenable to mass production ) so that your Nth plus 1 plant >> cost is equal to the cost of materials driving the capital cost down and of >> course one benefits because the cost of energy is decreasing so the >> operating cost decreases as well. The latter is how you can get between $25 >> and $10 . Most importantly here as well we and others have done enough >> research so we understand the process well enough to know there are no show >> stoppers and the path to improvement is clear and doable . There is of >> course lots of problems to still be solved. >> >> The reason I tell people is that all we have to do is decide to do DAC is >> because like solar once we do we will drive the costs down. Here the we is >> all of us. I hope I was careful in claiming DAC will be low cost and not >> that I or my company will be the one to do it. Once we start doing DAC >> other smart people may find better ways to implement the low cost path that >> our efforts have defined is a low cost path for DAC. or find a still better >> way. >> >> Doug I want you to know that I do not make the statements I do lightly . >> In fact I do worry that there is something we have failed to consider that >> will prevent one from reaching the very low learning curve cost limit . But >> I am 100% sure that under $50 per tonne will be achieved and that is why I >> use that number rather than $25 or $10 dollars per tonne. >> >> Peter >> >> On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 6:06 AM, Douglas MacMartin < >> macma...@cds.caltech.edu> wrote: >> >>> Peter – you should replace every use of the words “can” and “will” below >>> with something like “have been projected to” and “may”. >>> >>> >>> >>> If you do that, I’ll agree with you. As written, I disagree. Neither >>> you nor anyone else has proven that DAC **will* *have costs below >>> $50/ton, and I don’t think it helps make risk-balanced decisions to suggest >>> that we know with certainty that this will be possible. >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googleg >>> roups.com] *On Behalf Of *Peter Eisenberger >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 17, 2018 3:10 AM >>> *To:* Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> >>> *Cc:* Leon Di Marco <len2...@gmail.com>; geoengineering < >>> geoengineering@googlegroups.com> >>> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Re: Leaked policy draft of SR15 - what do you >>> think? >>> >>> >>> >>> As I have written frequently our company Global Thermostat has >>> developed a DAC technology that can at scale have costs under $50 per tonne >>> and which can be converted into carbon intensive products like carbon fiber >>> , plastics and cement at a profit whch will drive their costs down like >>> solar and will replace oil as a feedstock. >>> >>> An example of this is New Light Plastics and many other startups are >>> working on using CO2 as a feedsock . Another interesting technology is OPUS >>> 12 . >>> >>> Like solar the market place will decide. At $50 dollars per tonne the >>> carbon content is equivalent to $23 dollars a barrel of oil. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:44 PM, Andrew Lockley < >>> andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Respectfully, the facts contradict these assertions. >>> >>> >>> >>> Swanson's law has predicted the falling costs of solar energy for >>> decades. It is broadly reliable in the face of any individual government >>> initiatives - most of which are very limited in scope. >>> >>> >>> >>> Likewise, gas uptake has been driven largely by market forces - such as >>> the US fracking boom (supply side), and the use of central heating systems >>> (demand side). Gas, more generally, is a sticking-plaster solution. Unless >>> rising population, industrialisation and per-capita energy demand are >>> addressed, it doesn't amount to a sustainable solution. >>> >>> >>> >>> My personal opinion remains that CDR is wholly impractical for use at >>> scale, for historical emissions. I'd say we're 40+ years off it being >>> affordable - but I'm open to challenge. >>> >>> >>> >>> A >>> >>> >>> >>> On 17 Jan 2018 02:12, "Leon Di Marco" <len2...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> AL says above- >>> >>> >>> >>> *"Firstly, there has been no meaningful reduction in CO2 emissions, as a >>> result of government policies. Almost all the reduction in the developed >>> world has come from a switch to gas, and from offshoring heavy industries. * >>> >>> >>> >>> *Unless we have a wholesale shift in the taxation system, from >>> income/profit to carbon, government will remain irrelevant in the global >>> warming debate (other than a funder of basic research)."* >>> >>> >>> >>> The switch from coal to gas in Europe was as a direct result of govt >>> policy, such as the EU Large Plant Directive, a specifically designed >>> regulation. Similarly the Chinese govt is mandating coal plants to shut >>> down >>> >>> >>> >>> Govt is key to the advance of CDR through the IPCC process. Both >>> tailored regulation and some sort of incremental carbon price are an >>> inevitable intergovernmental response to the Paris Agreement NDCs and the >>> new Special Report on the effect of 1.5C. Govts will undoubtedly have to >>> intervene with support for early state development and implementation >>> >>> >>> >>> We are already seeing nascent approaches to CDR policy by the California >>> State govt through the proposed new CAFE car emissions standard, and by >>> Rhode Island in its putative "Climate Change Moonshot Initiative". >>> >>> >>> >>> There is no reasonable likelihood that Free Enterprise will get the job >>> on the road without intervention. And CDR is essential to stabilise >>> temperature, lower ocean temperature and acidification etc. Low carbon >>> energy sources such as solar and wind will not do this on their own. And >>> it will take a long time to shut down currently operating fossil power >>> plants. >>> >>> >>> >>> While I agree that the price reductions in solar and wind will >>> eventually kill of coal and gas, it should be remembered that the solar >>> revolution was based on 3 govt initiatives- >>> >>> 1 German Feed In Tariffs >>> >>> 3 Prof Martin Green at the Uni of New South Wales Australia who >>> trained Chinese graduates in advanced solar manufacturing >>> >>> 2 Chinese Local govt investment in large integrated solar plants run >>> by Martin Green's students >>> >>> >>> >>> Martin Green describes the process in his youtube video. >>> >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09CHkqQIA-A >>> *Martin Green - 40 years of PV research at UNSW* >>> >>> So AL may be right that - *"**Accordingly, GHG emissions will be >>> minimal mid-century" , *but the damage will have been done >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Leon Di Marco >>> >>> *FSK Technology Research* >>> >>> LONDON UK >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Friday, January 12, 2018 at 6:51:01 PM UTC, lou.delbello wrote: >>> >>> Dear all >>> >>> >>> >>> As some of you may have seen, the policy draft, circulated among a >>> selected group of scientists and policymakers, has been leaked to the >>> press <https://t.co/2HJ4jJagCC>. >>> >>> I was wondering what you make of the story: I am writing an article >>> about it and looking for an expert take. >>> >>> >>> >>> Mainly from a media point of view I think it would be interesting to >>> explain why the IPCC is quite secretive about this report, which is an >>> opportunity to introduce its political relevance, as well as scientific. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Lou >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> *Lou Del Bello* >>> >>> >>> >>> *Mobile UK +44 (0)7900632250 <+44%207900%20632250>* >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Multimedia journalist >>> >>> @loudelbello >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> 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. >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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. >> > -- 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.
