X-post after positive feedback on the piece ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Greg Rau" <[email protected]> Date: 19 Feb 2018 23:02 Subject: Re: [CDR] Re: "Silver bullet to suck CO2 from air and halt climate change ruled out" To: "Carbon Dioxide Removal" <[email protected]> Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Via Andrew Lockley: another take on the EASAC report: > https://www.thechemicalengineer.com/news/paris-agreement-targets-can-t- > be-reached-with-negative-emission-technologies/ > > "Not only do the NETs investigated in the report fail to reach the level > of carbon removal predicted in some climate scenarios, the time taken > between researching new technologies and successfully implementing them > will take decades. If NETs are seen as a viable solution to climate change, > they could influence policy makers to focus on these rather than to > prioritise the more urgent need to curb emissions." > > GR - It will certainly take more than decades (if ever) to research and > implement CDR with this kind of ringing endorsement for technologies that > the IPCC et al clearly view an essential complement (rather than a threat) > to emissions reduction in stopping climate change. How/why do such policy > disconnects happen? > > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* Peter Eisenberger <[email protected]> > *To:* Leon Di Marco <[email protected]> > *Cc:* Carbon Dioxide Removal <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 6, 2018 6:21 PM > *Subject:* Re: [CDR] Re: "Silver bullet to suck CO2 from air and halt > climate change ruled out" > > Hi All, > > I am no way saying that we should not do research on CDR -we should and > the more the better - what I am saying similr to Leon that we have at the > moment only one CDR that has the capability to scale to level and low if > non existent risks of unintended consequences with plausible claims it can > even stimulate economc development and help the developing countries meet > the needs of their people. So all I am saying is that work done by DAC > companies and the great need and potential means we should move into the > development phase of DAC with both public and private support. It makes no > sense to me in the presence of a threat to wait for other option to emerge, > When that happens I will be the first to support moving those to the > development stage as well. The one I feel is the closest is mineral > sequestration but it's net cost impact will be greater if the DAC > capability to sequester in valuable materials construction right where they > are needed. So I would support increased research on that option which I > note currently gets more pulic support than DAC because Dac gets zero. > > Peter > > On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 3:13 AM, Leon Di Marco <[email protected]> wrote: > > As part of his disclosure, Peter may be prepared to open his Columbia > course tools to allow others to explore his analysis - that would be very > beneficial not only for the CDR Study but also for the wider global R&D > discussion, and could be in the form of a teaching paper > > There should really not be an issue with DAC being the front runner as it > will be the benchmark and pathfinder. If other proposals are said to > match DAC at scale or have other benefits then they will have to offer a > similar level of disclosure and techno economic analysis. There are other > schemes around, as Greg has outlined, but they have been publicised and > usually belong to the class of versions of a given technique rather than > being original. > > Although R&D are usually lumped together, both R and D cover a wide > range, and, as with other technologies, the requirement for further R into > DAC etc is a separate issue to their need for D. The program / study > should recognise that. > LDM > > > On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 4:05:03 AM UTC, Greg Rau wrote: > > > > https://www.theguardian.com/en vironment/2018/feb/01/silver- > bullet-to-suck-co2-from-air- and-halt-climate-change-ruled- out > <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/feb/01/silver-bullet-to-suck-co2-from-air-and-halt-climate-change-ruled-out> > > *"*“You can rule out a silver bullet,” said Prof John Shepherd, at the > University of Southampton, UK, and an author of the report. “Negative > emissions technologies are very interesting but they are not an alternative > to deep and rapid emissions reductions. These remain the safest and most > reliable option that we have.” > The new report is from the European Academies Science Advisory Council > <https://www.easac.eu/> (EASAC), which advises the European Union and is > comprised of the national science academies of the 28 member states. It > warns that relying on NETs instead of emissions cuts could fail and result > in severe global warming and “serious implications for future > generations”.” > "The report assesses the range of possible technologies, including > “bioenergy with carbon capture and storage” (BECCS), on which the IPCC > scenarios rely heavily. BECCS involves growing trees, which take CO2 from > the atmosphere, and then burning them to produce electricity while > capturing the emissions and burying them. > But Prof Michael Norton, EASAC’s programme director and another author of > the report, said: “There are severe drawbacks.” These include the huge > amount of land needed and the energy need to produce and deliver the fuel. > Furthermore, it could worsen the enormous loss of wildlife – the sixth > mass extinction > <https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jul/10/earths-sixth-mass-extinction-event-already-underway-scientists-warn> > – already occurring. “The biodiversity impact at the colossal scale > envisaged would be severe,” Norton said.” > > GR- Few have suggested NETs are going to singlehandedly solve the climate > problem, but then apparently neither will emissions reduction. So we need > both to succeed; if NETs fails so does effective atmospheric (and ocean) C > management (IPCC et al.). Under these dire circumstances it is time to more > broadly and open-mindedly solicit and evaluate our options (e.g., > geochemistry, marine, hybrid bio-geochem approaches, etc), instead of > assuming that current favorites like BECCS are/will be the only game in > town. Relative to R&D investment, CCS has seriously failed to deliver it's > share of emissions reduction. Why can we expect a different outcome when > it’s applied to negative emissions? > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to CarbonDioxideRemoval+ [email protected] > <[email protected]>. > To post to this group, send email to CarbonDioxideRemoval@ > googlegroups.com <[email protected]>. > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/ group/CarbonDioxideRemoval > <https://groups.google.com/group/CarbonDioxideRemoval>. > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ > msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/ 07feff8a-8175-47db-8e49- > 8cdfb40014d4%40googlegroups. com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/07feff8a-8175-47db-8e49-8cdfb40014d4%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > > 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 > "Carbon Dioxide Removal" 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/CarbonDioxideRemoval. > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ > msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CANx_M7RcOkMYfRffENp1%3D3zbbRwzAxPK%2B% > 3Dp1Y6kFFAruk79J0g%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CANx_M7RcOkMYfRffENp1%3D3zbbRwzAxPK%2B%3Dp1Y6kFFAruk79J0g%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Carbon Dioxide Removal" 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/CarbonDioxideRemoval. > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ > msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/1257886472.1141591. > 1519081288678%40mail.yahoo.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/1257886472.1141591.1519081288678%40mail.yahoo.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > 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 [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.
