[geo] Arctic oil and gas spill hazards
Dear Peter, This [1] could be relevant to your workshop on oil under sea ice, late September in Italy. Does anybody know how they'd deal with major gas (methane) leak when drilling in the Arctic? This would be relevant to our methane busting workshop, London, 3-4 September, where we will brainstorm on methods to prevent potentially huge quantities of Arctic methane reaching the atmosphere. Who is an expert on gas leaks, that we could invite? Cheers, John --- [1] http://planetark.org/wen/62377 A major offshore Arctic oil spill could severely challenge the Coast Guard, with no available infrastructure to base rescue and clean-up operations, the Coast Guard commandant said on Monday. There is nothing up there to operate from at present and we're really starting from ground zero, said Adm. Robert Papp Jr. Now's the time to be not just talking about it, but acting about it. Several major oil companies, notably Royal Dutch Shell, have acquired leases to drill in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas off Alaska. Arctic waters are likely to be accessible to humans for longer periods as the planet heats up. In May, the extent of Arctic ice was the third-smallest since satellites began collecting data in 1979, according to the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center. Noting that the Coast Guard sent 3,000 people to work on the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Papp told reporters at a government symposium on shrinking Arctic ice: No way we could deploy several thousand people as we did in the Deepwater Horizon spill. The Coast Guard has no helicopters based on Alaska's North Slope, and no U.S. agency has a helicopter there equipped to perform rescues at sea, he said. There are no facilities that could serve as temporary hangars for equipment, or any small boat facilities. Housing for any emergency workers amounts to a few dozen hotel rooms, he said. LIQUID FUEL TURNS TO GEL Even as the Arctic warms -- and it is warming faster than lower latitudes -- temperatures are still extremely cold, which means equipment built for operations in temperate zones need to be tested for fitness in the far north. For example, the Coast Guard flew a basic military cargo plane, the C-130, in the Arctic and found that the craft's liquid fuel turned into a gel when temperatures dipped below a certain level unless heaters were applied to it, Papp said. Only one U.S. icebreaker ship will be under way this year, he said. Another is being decommissioned and a third ship is being updated. Papp said China is building what will be the most powerful conventional icebreaker in the world. He praised the signing last month of the Arctic Search and Rescue Agreement, where eight Arctic nations -- Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States -- agreed to cooperate on rescues above the Arctic Circle. The United States also needs to ratify the Law of the Sea treaty, Papp said. He said other Arctic nations are using this pact to stake claims to swaths of the extended continental shelf in the Arctic, and that U.S. ratification would enable the United States to extend its sovereignty there as well. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
[geo] Re: oxford talk 27th Jun 2011 4:00pm-5:30pm
Andrew, The group might wish to be awareof this response given by Ken Caldeira to an article in The Guardian last year authored by Clive Hamilton: http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering/msg/f61a0cf43cf2fe6f Clive Hamilton also had a similar but shorter version of the article in the New Scientist in the 21st July 2010 edition. Chris. On Jun 19, 7:19 pm, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/events/events/main/talk_by_clive_... Event: Talk on Geoengineering by Clive Hamilton Date Time: 27th Jun 2011 4:00pm-5:30pm Description: Clive Hamilton (an Academic Visitor based at the Oxford Uehiro Centre) is to give a talk for the Oxford Geoengineering Programme as follows: Venue: Oxford Martin School, Old Indian Institute (corner of Holywell and Catte Streets), 34 Broad Street.http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/contact/ Title: Rethinking Geoengineering and the Meaning of the Climate Crisis Abstract: This paper develops a critique of the consequentialist approach to the ethics of geoengineering, the approach that deploys assessment of costs and benefits in a risk framework to justify climatic intervention. He argues that there is a strong case for preferring the natural, and that the unique and highly threatening character of global warming renders the standard approach to the ethics of climate change unsustainable. Moreover, the unstated metaphysical assumption of conventional ethical, economic and policy thinking—modernity’s idea of the autonomous human subject analyzing and acting on an inert external world—is the basis for the kind of “technological thinking” that lies at the heart of the climate crisis. Technological thinking both projects a systems framework onto the natural world and frames it as a catalogue of resources for the benefit of humans. Recent discoveries by Earth system science itself—the arrival of the Anthropocene, the prevalence of non-linearities, and the deep complexity of the earth’s processes—hint at the inborn flaws in this kind of thinking. The grip of technological thinking explains why it has been so difficult for us to heed the warnings of climate science and why the idea of using technology to take control of the earth’s atmosphere is immediately appealing. Brief Bio: Clive Hamilton is Professor of Public Ethics at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE) and holds the newly created Vice-Chancellor's Chair at Charles Sturt University, Australia. He was the Founder and for 14 years the Executive Director of The Australia Institute, a public interest think tank. He is well known in Australia as a public intellectual and for his contributions to public policy debate. His extensive publications include writings on climate change policy, overconsumption, welfare policy and the effects of commercialisation. Recent publications include The Freedom Paradox: Towards a post-secular ethics and Requiem for a Species: Why we resist the truth about climate change All welcome, no booking required. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] Re: Arctic oil and gas spill hazards
Here's someone who used plastic liner to collect methane released by 21 million gallons of decomposing cow manure http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704266504575142224096848264.html I'm not sure whether this worked! Cheers! Sam Carana On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 8:39 PM, John Nissen j...@cloudworld.co.uk wrote: Dear Peter, Thanks for your reply. Stephen has suggested a means of capturing methane, which would catch the oil as well, using a large area of plastic membrane held down at its edges by weighted tyres (or something just heavier than water). It wouldn't solve the general problem of natural blow-out, e.g. in ESAS, which concerns Shakhova et al. (2008) [1], because you would not know in advance where the blow-out might take place; but it could solve the problem when there is drilling on a particular site - so the blow-out is restricted to a limited, known area (less than say 1 km-2). The membrane would be submerged and held over the danger area (anchored by the weights) when the sea ice has retreated. In a blow-out, the gas would push the membrane up to the surface - under the ice if there is ice - with the weights still holding down the edges. So you'd get something looking like an underwater hot-air balloon! You could then capture or destroy the oil and gas when the ice has retreated. Is this the kind of thing that the industry is thinking about? Cheers, John --- On 21/06/2011 09:07, P. Wadhams wrote: Dear John, Generally the assumption is that if there is an under-ice blowout, oil and gas will come out together, with the oil droplets coating the gas bubbles and being carried up by them. So the result is a bubble plume carrying oil up to the surface. Industry and government people concerned with coping with this emphasise the importance of the oil as a pollutant, and treat the gas as either something that can be allowed to escape from the surface, or something that can be ignited. There is no specific programme to deal with a gas leak as such, Best wishes Peter On Jun 21 2011, John Nissen wrote: Dear Peter, This [1] could be relevant to your workshop on oil under sea ice, late September in Italy. Does anybody know how they'd deal with major gas (methane) leak when drilling in the Arctic? This would be relevant to our methane busting workshop, London, 3-4 September, where we will brainstorm on methods to prevent potentially huge quantities of Arctic methane reaching the atmosphere. Who is an expert on gas leaks, that we could invite? Cheers, John --- [1] http://planetark.org/wen/62377 A major offshore Arctic oil spill could severely challenge the Coast Guard, with no available infrastructure to base rescue and clean-up operations, the Coast Guard commandant said on Monday. There is nothing up there to operate from at present and we're really starting from ground zero, said Adm. Robert Papp Jr. Now's the time to be not just talking about it, but acting about it. Several major oil companies, notably Royal Dutch Shell, have acquired leases to drill in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas off Alaska. Arctic waters are likely to be accessible to humans for longer periods as the planet heats up. In May, the extent of Arctic ice was the third-smallest since satellites began collecting data in 1979, according to the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center. Noting that the Coast Guard sent 3,000 people to work on the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Papp told reporters at a government symposium on shrinking Arctic ice: No way we could deploy several thousand people as we did in the Deepwater Horizon spill. The Coast Guard has no helicopters based on Alaska's North Slope, and no U.S. agency has a helicopter there equipped to perform rescues at sea, he said. There are no facilities that could serve as temporary hangars for equipment, or any small boat facilities. Housing for any emergency workers amounts to a few dozen hotel rooms, he said. LIQUID FUEL TURNS TO GEL Even as the Arctic warms -- and it is warming faster than lower latitudes -- temperatures are still extremely cold, which means equipment built for operations in temperate zones need to be tested for fitness in the far north. For example, the Coast Guard flew a basic military cargo plane, the C-130, in the Arctic and found that the craft's liquid fuel turned into a gel when temperatures dipped below a certain level unless heaters were applied to it, Papp said. Only one U.S. icebreaker ship will be under way this year, he said. Another is being decommissioned and a third ship is being updated. Papp said China is building what will be the most powerful conventional icebreaker in the world. He praised the signing last month of the Arctic Search and Rescue Agreement, where eight Arctic nations -- Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden and the United States -- agreed to cooperate on rescues above the
[geo] Re: Arctic oil and gas spill hazards
John The design of gas catching equipment is strongly affected by coverage area and flow rate. I have been looking at slow gas seepage over large areas, say a 50 by 150 metre rectangle .I can transport and deploy something that is compact for transport but can be spread out on the sea bed to form something like a distorted parachute. The volume of gas we can store underwater is small. The words 'blow out' imply something much smaller but with much higher flows and pressures and the design would be very different. I think that we may need quite a wide range of quite distinct bits of equipment. We also need to understand source areas and flow rates that are likely to be encountered. I do like the idea of letting the ice do the structural work but I have seen film of quite rough ice undersides and lots of breaks. Stephen. Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design Institute for Energy Systems School of Engineering Mayfield Road University of Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland Tel +44 131 650 5704 Mobile 07795 203 195 www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs On 21/06/2011 11:39, John Nissen wrote: Dear Peter, Thanks for your reply. Stephen has suggested a means of capturing methane, which would catch the oil as well, using a large area of plastic membrane held down at its edges by weighted tyres (or something just heavier than water). It wouldn't solve the general problem of natural blow-out, e.g. in ESAS, which concerns Shakhova et al. (2008) [1], because you would not know in advance where the blow-out might take place; but it could solve the problem when there is drilling on a particular site - so the blow-out is restricted to a limited, known area (less than say 1 km-2). The membrane would be submerged and held over the danger area (anchored by the weights) when the sea ice has retreated. In a blow-out, the gas would push the membrane up to the surface - under the ice if there is ice - with the weights still holding down the edges. So you'd get something looking like an underwater hot-air balloon! You could then capture or destroy the oil and gas when the ice has retreated. Is this the kind of thing that the industry is thinking about? Cheers, John --- On 21/06/2011 09:07, P. Wadhams wrote: Dear John, Generally the assumption is that if there is an under-ice blowout, oil and gas will come out together, with the oil droplets coating the gas bubbles and being carried up by them. So the result is a bubble plume carrying oil up to the surface. Industry and government people concerned with coping with this emphasise the importance of the oil as a pollutant, and treat the gas as either something that can be allowed to escape from the surface, or something that can be ignited. There is no specific programme to deal with a gas leak as such, Best wishes Peter On Jun 21 2011, John Nissen wrote: Dear Peter, This [1] could be relevant to your workshop on oil under sea ice, late September in Italy. Does anybody know how they'd deal with major gas (methane) leak when drilling in the Arctic? This would be relevant to our methane busting workshop, London, 3-4 September, where we will brainstorm on methods to prevent potentially huge quantities of Arctic methane reaching the atmosphere. Who is an expert on gas leaks, that we could invite? Cheers, John --- [1] http://planetark.org/wen/62377 A major offshore Arctic oil spill could severely challenge the Coast Guard, with no available infrastructure to base rescue and clean-up operations, the Coast Guard commandant said on Monday. There is nothing up there to operate from at present and we're really starting from ground zero, said Adm. Robert Papp Jr. Now's the time to be not just talking about it, but acting about it. Several major oil companies, notably Royal Dutch Shell, have acquired leases to drill in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas off Alaska. Arctic waters are likely to be accessible to humans for longer periods as the planet heats up. In May, the extent of Arctic ice was the third-smallest since satellites began collecting data in 1979, according to the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center. Noting that the Coast Guard sent 3,000 people to work on the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, Papp told reporters at a government symposium on shrinking Arctic ice: No way we could deploy several thousand people as we did in the Deepwater Horizon spill. The Coast Guard has no helicopters based on Alaska's North Slope, and no U.S. agency has a helicopter there equipped to perform rescues at sea, he said. There are no facilities that could serve as temporary hangars for equipment, or any small boat facilities. Housing for any emergency workers amounts to a few dozen hotel rooms, he said. LIQUID FUEL TURNS TO GEL Even as the Arctic warms -- and it is warming faster than lower latitudes -- temperatures are still extremely cold, which means equipment built for operations in
Re: [geo] oxford talk 27th Jun 2011 4:00pm-5:30pm
Dear all, The most telling sentence in the summary of Clive Hamilton's Oxford talk is this: *The grip of technological thinking explains why it has been so difficult for us to heed the warnings of climate science and why the idea of using technology to take control of the earth’s atmosphere is immediately appealing*. 1. I know very few people who propose geoengineering without also advocating renewed efforts to reduce greenhouse gases. 2. The idea of using technology (geoengineering) is not appealing to anybody - it is only considered as emergency action - hence demanded by people (like myself) who believe we are in an emergency right now (see especially 5 below). 3. It is the science that demands that we take geoengineering seriously, because emissions reductions by themselves cannot have required effects (halting global warming and ocean acidification) in necessary timescales. 4. The idea that the Earth System will heal itself, if only we stop meddling with it and reducing our emissions, is very attractive to environmentalists but extremely foolish. The huge pulse of CO2 which we've put in the atmosphere will stay for generations, and continue heating the planet for generations, unless we DO something to reduce the CO2 level. This is an ethical imperative. 5. Scientific research in the Arctic suggests that there is a methane time-bomb, which needs to be defused as quickly as possible, if we are to avoid risk of methane-induced runaway global warming. 6. We can only bring down the temperature in the Arctic if we DO something to cool the Arctic by reducing the radiative forcing there using some kind of SRM geoengineering (albeit less than global scale). Again this is an ethical imperative. So it is the lack of grip of scientific thinking which is the problem - and taking a grip on technological thinking which is the solution, however unappealing this is to all of us! The geoengineering medicine has a nasty flavour, but it could be life-saving for us all. Cheers, John --- On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 1:02 AM, Tom Wigley wig...@ucar.edu wrote: Dear all, There are some excellent works on climate ethics. Here are two that I enjoyed ... The Ethics of Climate Change, James Garvey, Continuum International Publishing Group, London, 2008. One World, The Ethics of Globalization, Peter Singer, Yale University Press, New Haven, 2004 (2nd edition). Peter Singer's book has some eye-opening stuff in it. Tom. On 6/20/2011 11:36 AM, Gregory Benford wrote: This seems to add nothing to Martin HEIDIGGER's work, as wiki puts it: The essence of modern technology is the conversion of the whole universe of beings into an undifferentiated standing reserve (/Bestand/) of energy available for any use to which humans choose to put it. Heidegger described the essence of modern technology as /Gestell http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Gestellhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestell/, or enframing. Heidegger does not unequivocally condemn technology: while he acknowledges that modern technology contains grave dangers, Heidegger nevertheless also argues that it may constitute a chance for human beings to enter a new epoch in their relation to being. Gregory Benford On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com mailto:andrew.lockley@gmail.**comandrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.practicalethics.ox.**ac.uk/events/events/main/talk_** by_clive_hamiltonhttp://www.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/events/events/main/talk_by_clive_hamilton Event: Talk on Geoengineering by Clive Hamilton Date Time:27th Jun 2011 4:00pm-5:30pm Description: Clive Hamilton (an Academic Visitor based at the Oxford Uehiro Centre) is to give a talk for the Oxford Geoengineering Programme as follows: Venue: Oxford Martin School, Old Indian Institute (corner of Holywell and Catte Streets), 34 Broad Street. http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.**uk/contact/http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/contact/ Title: Rethinking Geoengineering and the Meaning of the Climate Crisis Abstract: This paper develops a critique of the consequentialist approach to the ethics of geoengineering, the approach that deploys assessment of costs and benefits in a risk framework to justify climatic intervention. He argues that there is a strong case for preferring the natural, and that the unique and highly threatening character of global warming renders the standard approach to the ethics of climate change unsustainable. Moreover, the unstated metaphysical assumption of conventional ethical, economic and policy thinking—modernity’s idea of the autonomous human subject analyzing and acting on an inert external world—is the basis for the kind of “technological thinking” that lies at the heart of the climate crisis. Technological thinking both projects a systems framework onto the natural world and
[geo] Re: Arctic oil and gas spill hazards
Hi Stephen, Perhaps the membrane could be spread out on the surface of the water just before ice begins forming - such that one can avoid the rough underside of the ice rupturing the membrane. And one could have some kind of circular floating barrier (pykrete*?) around the perimeter of the whole area to prevent the ice from distorting in the usual way. This barrier would be anchored to the bottom - as can be done for floating oil rigs. We could then think of the possibility to thicken the ice within the perimeter, e.g. by pumping water onto the membrane to freeze in the cold Arctic air, and then building up layers of ice above that, especially around the edges (because one wants the methane to collect in the centre). Cheers, John * Pykrete is very strong under compression - like concrete. Hence you'd have a ring of it, and struts perhaps. --- On 21/06/2011 12:24, Stephen Salter wrote: John The design of gas catching equipment is strongly affected by coverage area and flow rate. I have been looking at slow gas seepage over large areas, say a 50 by 150 metre rectangle .I can transport and deploy something that is compact for transport but can be spread out on the sea bed to form something like a distorted parachute. The volume of gas we can store underwater is small. The words 'blow out' imply something much smaller but with much higher flows and pressures and the design would be very different. I think that we may need quite a wide range of quite distinct bits of equipment. We also need to understand source areas and flow rates that are likely to be encountered. I do like the idea of letting the ice do the structural work but I have seen film of quite rough ice undersides and lots of breaks. Stephen. Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design Institute for Energy Systems School of Engineering Mayfield Road University of Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland Tel +44 131 650 5704 Mobile 07795 203 195 www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs On 21/06/2011 11:39, John Nissen wrote: Dear Peter, Thanks for your reply. Stephen has suggested a means of capturing methane, which would catch the oil as well, using a large area of plastic membrane held down at its edges by weighted tyres (or something just heavier than water). It wouldn't solve the general problem of natural blow-out, e.g. in ESAS, which concerns Shakhova et al. (2008) [1], because you would not know in advance where the blow-out might take place; but it could solve the problem when there is drilling on a particular site - so the blow-out is restricted to a limited, known area (less than say 1 km-2). The membrane would be submerged and held over the danger area (anchored by the weights) when the sea ice has retreated. In a blow-out, the gas would push the membrane up to the surface - under the ice if there is ice - with the weights still holding down the edges. So you'd get something looking like an underwater hot-air balloon! You could then capture or destroy the oil and gas when the ice has retreated. Is this the kind of thing that the industry is thinking about? Cheers, John --- On 21/06/2011 09:07, P. Wadhams wrote: Dear John, Generally the assumption is that if there is an under-ice blowout, oil and gas will come out together, with the oil droplets coating the gas bubbles and being carried up by them. So the result is a bubble plume carrying oil up to the surface. Industry and government people concerned with coping with this emphasise the importance of the oil as a pollutant, and treat the gas as either something that can be allowed to escape from the surface, or something that can be ignited. There is no specific programme to deal with a gas leak as such, Best wishes Peter On Jun 21 2011, John Nissen wrote: Dear Peter, This [1] could be relevant to your workshop on oil under sea ice, late September in Italy. Does anybody know how they'd deal with major gas (methane) leak when drilling in the Arctic? This would be relevant to our methane busting workshop, London, 3-4 September, where we will brainstorm on methods to prevent potentially huge quantities of Arctic methane reaching the atmosphere. Who is an expert on gas leaks, that we could invite? Cheers, John --- [1] http://planetark.org/wen/62377 A major offshore Arctic oil spill could severely challenge the Coast Guard, with no available infrastructure to base rescue and clean-up operations, the Coast Guard commandant said on Monday. There is nothing up there to operate from at present and we're really starting from ground zero, said Adm. Robert Papp Jr. Now's the time to be not just talking about it, but acting about it. Several major oil companies, notably Royal Dutch Shell, have acquired leases to drill in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas off Alaska. Arctic waters are likely to be accessible to humans for longer periods as the planet heats up. In May, the extent of Arctic ice was the
Re: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report
Robert and ccs 1. Thanks for the added links and information. Not yet mentioned on this list is that your APS panel changed (added?) only one footnote (#18) - and as near as I can tell - changed no conclusions. Still projecting $600/tonCO2, it seems. 2. As you may have noticed there has been some discussion this list on how we (Society) should be evaluating climate technologies. I do think that groups such as the APS have done and can do a great public service with studies of the type you have performed here (but I know too little of the topic to know if your panel or Keith should be given the higher believability rating). I thank you for taking on a thankless task. Two questions for you, based on my concerns (as at what may happen in Lima, for instance) a. Do you feel that the air capture experts were given adequate time to present to your panel - or might you now do something different procedurally? b. Are you aware of any other similar (highly technical, multiple and presumably un-biased panelists) technology assessment in the works (by professional societies or anyone) for any of the other field(s) of geoengineering? 3 Your proposal with Prof Pacala to use the simplified concept of seven wedges reaching 1 Gt C each in 50 years time (and 25 Gt C each avoided) has been very helpful (unfortunately not yet very well followed). Several questions on that as related to the interests of this list: a. Since we all (?) are trying to get into carbon negative territory ASAP, can you comment on having each wedge grow twice as rapidly so as to get to zero fossil carbon by 2060. This being even longer than Jim Hansen desires, of course - so can you endorse an even shorter growth period for the (roughly seven? or do we need 14 now?) wedges. b. Have you given thought as to what a similar carbon negative wedge split should be on the CDR side? How much BECCS, air capture, ocean deposition. tree planting, Biochar, etc? Does the wedge concept still work as well? At what time point in the 50 year history for the traditional Pacala-Socolow wedge growth would you recommend starting the CDR wedges? Soon? c. Is there a way that the SRM technologies fit into a wedge description? Thanks in advance. Ron - Original Message - From: Robert Socolow soco...@princeton.edu To: rongretlar...@comcast.net, ke...@ucalgary.ca Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 8:33:12 PM Subject: RE: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report Ron and others: I attach .pdfs for the report (revised) and the press release. The links are: Report: http://www.aps.org/policy/reports/popa-reports/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfilePageID=244407 . Press release: http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/dac11.cfm The links have not been changed. Rob Socolow From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of rongretlar...@comcast.net Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 8:08 PM To: ke...@ucalgary.ca Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report David - Can you provide a link to the revised APS report? (I failed.) Thanks Ron - Original Message - From: David Keith ke...@ucalgary.ca To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 4:38:16 PM Subject: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report Several recent posts have referred to the American Physical Society’s report on Air Capture. We posted a critique of the report and in turn the APS released an updated version that—using a post-facto kluge—addressed two of the errors that had identified. The our comments are posted on www.carbonengineering.com the website of our Air Capture startup company, the deep link is here: http://www.carbonengineering.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/CE_APS_DAC_Comments.pdf . We at Carbon Engineering are self-interested. Of course! But that cuts both ways. We have a huge incentive do to quality engineering that can be brought to market and not to waste our time on stuff that does not make sense. Speaking for myself, I have opportunities to do commercial work on both AC and on biomass with capture (BECCS). And I have access to high quality proprietary engineering and economic analysis of both. If I thought that BECCS was much cheaper than AC then I would not be working on AC. David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To
Re: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report
I think the fact that they came up with cost estimates that are within an order-of-magnitude of other approaches that have received a lot of attention shows that this is an area worthy of additional research. They did not say it was thermodynamically impossible or anything like that. They said that it looked expensive. If in 1905 you did an assessment of air travel, you would say that it looked expensive compared to trains and ships and barges. Nevertheless, costs came down and high value applications were found where people were willing to spend more. Direct Air Capture looks expensive relative to costs of other options, so it would be foolhardy to think that this will be an important mitigation tool in the next decades, given what we now know. We shouldn't put too many chips on this bet, but we should put some chips on this bet. Rob Socolow has been a champion of the portfolio approach to clean energy RD funding. My guess is that there is not an argument of whether direct air capture should be in the RD portfolio, but rather how large a slice of the pie should be allocated to this effort. ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 9:03 AM, rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote: Robert and ccs 1. Thanks for the added links and information. Not yet mentioned on this list is that your APS panel changed (added?) only one footnote (#18) - and as near as I can tell - changed no conclusions. Still projecting $600/tonCO2, it seems. 2. As you may have noticed there has been some discussion this list on how we (Society) should be evaluating climate technologies. I do think that groups such as the APS have done and can do a great public service with studies of the type you have performed here (but I know too little of the topic to know if your panel or Keith should be given the higher believability rating). I thank you for taking on a thankless task. Two questions for you, based on my concerns (as at what may happen in Lima, for instance) a. Do you feel that the air capture experts were given adequate time to present to your panel - or might you now do something different procedurally? b. Are you aware of any other similar (highly technical, multiple and presumably un-biased panelists) technology assessment in the works (by professional societies or anyone) for any of the other field(s) of geoengineering? 3Your proposal with Prof Pacala to use the simplified concept of seven wedges reaching 1 Gt C each in 50 years time (and 25 Gt C each avoided) has been very helpful (unfortunately not yet very well followed). Several questions on that as related to the interests of this list: a. Since we all (?) are trying to get into carbon negative territory ASAP, can you comment on having each wedge grow twice as rapidly so as to get to zero fossil carbon by 2060. This being even longer than Jim Hansen desires, of course - so can you endorse an even shorter growth period for the (roughly seven? or do we need 14 now?) wedges. b. Have you given thought as to what a similar carbon negative wedge split should be on the CDR side? How much BECCS, air capture, ocean deposition. tree planting, Biochar, etc? Does the wedge concept still work as well? At what time point in the 50 year history for the traditional Pacala-Socolow wedge growth would you recommend starting the CDR wedges? Soon? c. Is there a way that the SRM technologies fit into a wedge description? Thanks in advance. Ron -- *From: *Robert Socolow soco...@princeton.edu *To: *rongretlar...@comcast.net, ke...@ucalgary.ca *Cc: *geoengineering@googlegroups.com *Sent: *Monday, June 20, 2011 8:33:12 PM *Subject: *RE: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report Ron and others: I attach .pdfs for the report (revised) and the press release. The links are: Report: http://www.aps.org/policy/reports/popa-reports/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfilePageID=244407. Press release: http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/dac11.cfm The links have not been changed. Rob Socolow *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto: geoengineering@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *rongretlar...@comcast.net *Sent:* Monday, June 20, 2011 8:08 PM *To:* ke...@ucalgary.ca *Cc:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report David - Can you provide a link to the revised APS report? (I failed.) Thanks Ron -- *From: *David Keith ke...@ucalgary.ca *To: *geoengineering@googlegroups.com *Sent: *Monday, June 20, 2011 4:38:16 PM *Subject: *[geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report Several recent posts have
RE: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report
Ron, Ken, and others: Given that the Lima meeting is in its middle day today, let me push everything aside to write answers to Ron's questions. I am speaking only for myself. 1. Yes, there is only one change, aside from formatting, in the June 1 version of the APS report. We say so on the second page of the preface. As we were issuing the unformatted version at the end of April, David Keith identified a clear mistake in our report, involving the pressure drop per meter for a specific packing material, which we had carried forward from a 2006 paper. Fortunately, one member of our committee, Marco Mazzotti, was an author of that paper. With one of his co-authors, he updated his earlier work with new information from the manufacturer of the packing, additionally found an error in his earlier analysis, followed a hunch that there was an easy fix for us by substituting one packing for another, and we buttoned this up. The new packing is cheaper, but we verified that our initial cost estimate for packing had been so conservative that the new packing actually fit the assumed price better. I am aware at this time of no outright error in our report. People may find some, and if they do I hope they will tell me about them. 2. Item a. In my view, the experts (specifically Keith, Lackner, and Eisenberger) were given adequate time to interact with us. Our project took two years. We established groundrules at the front end that there would be an arms-length relationship and (confirmed more than once) that as a matter of policy we would not learn confidential information. All three presented to us at our kick-off meeting in March 2009, reviewed a draft (along with almost 20 others) in April 2010, and communicated repeatedly with us. I had the personal goal of being sure that the key ideas in their work were understood by our committee and commented upon in our report. Nonetheless, none of the three of them is happy with the result. One comment all three would make is that they would have done the study differently. They would have asked what air capture could cost if one were to assume success in the presence of risk; our committee felt that in the absence of reviewable published data, this was an illegitimate task. We decided to include one cost estimate based on a benchmark design, resulting in a system whose cost is probably quite a lot higher than $600/tCO2, and in the process, by careful attention to methodology, the reader can learn how to think about costs. Personally, I now appreciate (and the reader will too who works through the calculation) that the most underestimated cost factor is the pressure drop as air moves through the contactor, which enters not only as a an energy cost but also through its impact on net carbon, even for largely decarbonized power. All three experts are working on low-pressure-drop systems for this reason. Item b. I know of no comparable study. We call explicitly for some group to do some comparable analysis of biological air capture: afforestation, biochar, BECS - maybe one study for each. In that instance it will be critical to understand what scale-up looks like: small-scale deployment is cheap and could have major co-benefits. But how much planetary engineering is entailed if one aims for the reduction of atmospheric CO2 by 1 ppm per year for a hundred years - negative carbon on a monumental scale? 3. ASAP means as soon as possible. I think one needs to be careful with such language. If one is in a car, one can slam on the brakes or brake carefully. Both could be called smallest-possible-distance braking, but the meaning of possible would be different in the two cases, with more conditionality in the second case. When Pacala and I wrote the wedges paper in 2004, we identified a societal goal of an emissions rate at mid-century no higher than today's; if restated in today's language, 30 MtCO2/yr in 2061. That goal is now considered timid by many - it is associated with 3 degrees, while the more politically correct 2 degrees is associated with 15 MtCO2/yr. My view is that we shouldn't choose between these two goals now. We should make that decision in 10 to 20 years, but concentrate now on getting on a new path. But I think it is also important, and will make the activist community more credible, if we concede in some prominent way that the world could overreact to climate change, undervaluing what can go wrong when solutions are deployed, from the destruction of forest ecosystems to nuclear proliferation. In short, we want to keep conditionality at the front of our minds, not treat it as an afterthought. We should be suspicious of distractions, and, to my mind, direct air capture is one of these. Air capture is a close neighbor of post-combustion capture at coal and gas power plants, a much cheaper mitigation strategy. This simple fact about technological neighbors tells is to be very careful always to state that near the top of the
[geo] and it'll accelerate CC : IPSO calls for geoengineering
Hi, thanks for this - death of the oceans will likely accelerate climate change and global warming and in some cases already is. Please read our 2009 report here - with an exec sum at the beginning and summary of conclusions in each chapter. http://met.no/Forskning/Vare_forskere/Cecilie_Mauritzen/filestore/Reid_etal_advMarBiol2009.pdf plus: changes akin to the loss of the dinosaurs afoot. The Arctic chapter gives good evidence of why geo-eng is needed. This wwf commissioned report also considers ocean fertilisation. best, Emily. On 20/06/2011 16:43, Andrew Lockley wrote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/science-environment-13796479?SThisEM Ipso calls for geoengineering, argues against ocean fertilization, and claims 6th mass extinction may be happening. All jolly exciting. May we live (briefly) in interesting times. I'm thinking of running a book on the date for the extinction of the human race. Any bets? A -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report
I leave the Lima group with a final thought. Is SRM only an emergency strategy? What are the pros and cons of a continuous ground-bass deployment of 1 W/m^2 of stratospheric aerosol negative forcing, as an overall helper on the margin and as a way of learning about larger deployment? No, it shouldn't only be considered as an emergency option, a term which has never been adequately defined anyway and tends to be used as a defense against the media and the opponents of geoengineering by those working in the field who can't or don't want to pardon the expression, take the heat. Paul Crutzen included use of stratospheric aerosols at about this level of negative forcing to replace the loss of tropospheric sulfate from pollution controls and others have made similar proposals (including me). To get to some kind of full-scale offset of AGW forcing (back to pre-industrial from today or some future date) you have to pass through 1 W/m2 anyway. Plus, a slowdown of warming now means less ice melted that we can't replace in the future (given what we know about how difficult that will be). This applies to cloud brightening as well or some other technology that could achieve the same impact. But i also note that to get to 1 W/m2 you have to get through 0.1 and 0.2 and 0.3, etc. You have to start somewhere. - Original Message - From: Robert Socolow To: rongretlar...@comcast.net Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com ; ke...@ucalgary.ca Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 2:57 Subject: RE: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report Ron, Ken, and others: Given that the Lima meeting is in its middle day today, let me push everything aside to write answers to Ron's questions. I am speaking only for myself. 1. Yes, there is only one change, aside from formatting, in the June 1 version of the APS report. We say so on the second page of the preface. As we were issuing the unformatted version at the end of April, David Keith identified a clear mistake in our report, involving the pressure drop per meter for a specific packing material, which we had carried forward from a 2006 paper. Fortunately, one member of our committee, Marco Mazzotti, was an author of that paper. With one of his co-authors, he updated his earlier work with new information from the manufacturer of the packing, additionally found an error in his earlier analysis, followed a hunch that there was an easy fix for us by substituting one packing for another, and we buttoned this up. The new packing is cheaper, but we verified that our initial cost estimate for packing had been so conservative that the new packing actually fit the assumed price better. I am aware at this time of no outright error in our report. People may find some, and if they do I hope they will tell me about them. 2. Item a. In my view, the experts (specifically Keith, Lackner, and Eisenberger) were given adequate time to interact with us. Our project took two years. We established groundrules at the front end that there would be an arms-length relationship and (confirmed more than once) that as a matter of policy we would not learn confidential information. All three presented to us at our kick-off meeting in March 2009, reviewed a draft (along with almost 20 others) in April 2010, and communicated repeatedly with us. I had the personal goal of being sure that the key ideas in their work were understood by our committee and commented upon in our report. Nonetheless, none of the three of them is happy with the result. One comment all three would make is that they would have done the study differently. They would have asked what air capture could cost if one were to assume success in the presence of risk; our committee felt that in the absence of reviewable published data, this was an illegitimate task. We decided to include one cost estimate based on a benchmark design, resulting in a system whose cost is probably quite a lot higher than $600/tCO2, and in the process, by careful attention to methodology, the reader can learn how to think about costs. Personally, I now appreciate (and the reader will too who works through the calculation) that the most underestimated cost factor is the pressure drop as air moves through the contactor, which enters not only as a an energy cost but also through its impact on net carbon, even for largely decarbonized power. All three experts are working on low-pressure-drop systems for this reason. Item b. I know of no comparable study. We call explicitly for some group to do some comparable analysis of biological air capture: afforestation, biochar, BECS - maybe one study for each. In that instance it will be critical to understand what scale-up looks like: small-scale deployment is cheap and could have major co-benefits. But how much planetary engineering is entailed if one aims for the reduction of atmospheric CO2 by 1 ppm per
[geo] NGO opposition to geo
Hi, It might be useful to engage with the NGO community and connect on some geo-eng issues as currently, the opposition to intervening with climate change actively is mounting. This is a risky strategy also. Either way - to intervene or not - has its risks and moral and ethical dilemmas. NGO letter to the IPCC geoengineering meeting (http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5267) http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5267 Hands Off Mother Earth : HOME campaign (http://www.handsoffmotherearth.org) http://www.handsoffmotherearth.org/ best wishes, Emily. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] HOME/ETC Group Targets IPCC
Hi Folks, Holly, I read your media assessment paper and found it a pleasure to see such thought put into the subject. The concept of GE is in need of this type of insight now and for sometime to come. Your paper can be viewed as a good indicator as to how well the message is being reieved. I think GE is failing on the PR subject. Yet, that is understandable as it has need championed by fewer people than I had at my last BBQ..I believe the bildungsroman of GE can be as positive as you point out and I also believe the final chapter of the book will be a tribute to humanities ability to survive their own follies. I would also like to comment on your statement; ***I see our root problems as poor land use, socio-economic systems that depend on fossil-fuel combustion, and uneven development. So strategies should be assessed on their ability to contribute to solving these, and downgraded if they can't. *. Holly, that is social engineeringnot GE! I think that type of all-inclusive thought path is one of the major issues of contention in this first chapter of the GE story. Societal issues are a necessary part of the GE equation as any rational person interested in this field wants to do the greatest good for the greatest number. However, the original core of the GE concept is not so broad that uneven development even shows up on the radar. The original GE concept is an emergency procedure...a last ditch hope for humanity. That is a highly worthy cause on its own. How can any GE concept address the social issues you are attaching to the evaluation criteria? I was glad to see you pointed out that ETC et al. can not represent civil society as there is little knowledge to make informed comments or evaluations. That assumption of leading status by ETC is what I found as being truly objectionable. I do hope you find the time to re-evaluate the media trends over the years so history can have a clear view of the how this story plays out in the media. Thanks for your work. Michael -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/wUJzn7RMwZIJ. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
RE: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report
Of course it's not only an emergency strategy. Each group that has begun to think about it seriously has realized that. I said just this to the group in Lima an hour ago. David From: Alvia Gaskill [mailto:agask...@nc.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 3:07 PM To: soco...@princeton.edu; rongretlar...@comcast.net Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com; David Keith Subject: Re: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report I leave the Lima group with a final thought. Is SRM only an emergency strategy? What are the pros and cons of a continuous ground-bass deployment of 1 W/m^2 of stratospheric aerosol negative forcing, as an overall helper on the margin and as a way of learning about larger deployment? No, it shouldn't only be considered as an emergency option, a term which has never been adequately defined anyway and tends to be used as a defense against the media and the opponents of geoengineering by those working in the field who can't or don't want to pardon the expression, take the heat. Paul Crutzen included use of stratospheric aerosols at about this level of negative forcing to replace the loss of tropospheric sulfate from pollution controls and others have made similar proposals (including me). To get to some kind of full-scale offset of AGW forcing (back to pre-industrial from today or some future date) you have to pass through 1 W/m2 anyway. Plus, a slowdown of warming now means less ice melted that we can't replace in the future (given what we know about how difficult that will be). This applies to cloud brightening as well or some other technology that could achieve the same impact. But i also note that to get to 1 W/m2 you have to get through 0.1 and 0.2 and 0.3, etc. You have to start somewhere. - Original Message - From: Robert Socolowmailto:soco...@princeton.edu To: rongretlar...@comcast.netmailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com ; ke...@ucalgary.camailto:ke...@ucalgary.ca Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 2:57 Subject: RE: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report Ron, Ken, and others: Given that the Lima meeting is in its middle day today, let me push everything aside to write answers to Ron's questions. I am speaking only for myself. 1. Yes, there is only one change, aside from formatting, in the June 1 version of the APS report. We say so on the second page of the preface. As we were issuing the unformatted version at the end of April, David Keith identified a clear mistake in our report, involving the pressure drop per meter for a specific packing material, which we had carried forward from a 2006 paper. Fortunately, one member of our committee, Marco Mazzotti, was an author of that paper. With one of his co-authors, he updated his earlier work with new information from the manufacturer of the packing, additionally found an error in his earlier analysis, followed a hunch that there was an easy fix for us by substituting one packing for another, and we buttoned this up. The new packing is cheaper, but we verified that our initial cost estimate for packing had been so conservative that the new packing actually fit the assumed price better. I am aware at this time of no outright error in our report. People may find some, and if they do I hope they will tell me about them. 2. Item a. In my view, the experts (specifically Keith, Lackner, and Eisenberger) were given adequate time to interact with us. Our project took two years. We established groundrules at the front end that there would be an arms-length relationship and (confirmed more than once) that as a matter of policy we would not learn confidential information. All three presented to us at our kick-off meeting in March 2009, reviewed a draft (along with almost 20 others) in April 2010, and communicated repeatedly with us. I had the personal goal of being sure that the key ideas in their work were understood by our committee and commented upon in our report. Nonetheless, none of the three of them is happy with the result. One comment all three would make is that they would have done the study differently. They would have asked what air capture could cost if one were to assume success in the presence of risk; our committee felt that in the absence of reviewable published data, this was an illegitimate task. We decided to include one cost estimate based on a benchmark design, resulting in a system whose cost is probably quite a lot higher than $600/tCO2, and in the process, by careful attention to methodology, the reader can learn how to think about costs. Personally, I now appreciate (and the reader will too who works through the calculation) that the most underestimated cost factor is the pressure drop as air moves through the contactor, which enters not only as a an energy cost but also through its impact on net carbon, even for largely decarbonized power. All three experts are
[geo] Re: NGO opposition to geo
On IPSO, BBC suggests that the report supports certain types of geoengineering, but the long version of the summary report, which is all that has been released, talks only of significantly increased measures for mitigation of atmospheric CO2 (p. 8) (http:// www.stateoftheocean.org/pdfs/1906_IPSO-LONG.pdf). This is pretty vague. I guess we'll have to wait for the full report for more details. As an aside, see Annex 2 for the proposed Global Ocean Compliance Commission--nice sentiment, but unlikely. Josh On Jun 21, 5:07 pm, Emily em...@lewis-brown.net wrote: Hi, It might be useful to engage with the NGO community and connect on some geo-eng issues as currently, the opposition to intervening with climate change actively is mounting. This is a risky strategy also. Either way - to intervene or not - has its risks and moral and ethical dilemmas. NGO letter to the IPCC geoengineering meeting (http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5267) http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5267 Hands Off Mother Earth : HOME campaign (http://www.handsoffmotherearth.org) http://www.handsoffmotherearth.org/ best wishes, Emily. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report
Bob etal Thanks for a very complete response. I appreciate the rationale for limit of 2 or 3 or more degrees maximum, but am going to still push for a 1.5 degree limit (ala Jim Hansen) - thinking we might thereby get 2 or 2.5. I feel we could even do 1.5 if we got serious - and of course we are not. I'm pretty sure the smaller temperature rises are the cheaper - not the more expensive - approach Re item 2b and a CDR analysis, I agree we need one (or more). Some LCA's are beginning to appear for Biochar - many PhD theses in the woks I'll bet. Re 1 ppm per year for 100 years - Jim Hansen is trying for a quicker response (in part because he starts sooner and lower). I'd appreciate a thought on the needed Gt C/yr to accompany your 1 ppm per annum. More or less than 3? (still trying to understand the way the ocean will react over 50 (Hansen's) years.) Re your last paragraphs and 1 W/m2 - I am going to pass, until I hear a lot more. You have an interesting use of conservative and liberal in here. Ron - Original Message - From: Robert Socolow soco...@princeton.edu To: rongretlar...@comcast.net Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com, ke...@ucalgary.ca Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 12:57:14 PM Subject: RE: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report Ron, Ken, and others: Given that the Lima meeting is in its middle day today, let me push everything aside to write answers to Ron’s questions. I am speaking only for myself. 1. Yes, there is only one change, aside from formatting, in the June 1 version of the APS report. We say so on the second page of the preface. As we were issuing the unformatted version at the end of April, David Keith identified a clear mistake in our report, involving the pressure drop per meter for a specific packing material, which we had carried forward from a 2006 paper. Fortunately, one member of our committee, Marco Mazzotti, was an author of that paper. With one of his co-authors, he updated his earlier work with new information from the manufacturer of the packing, additionally found an error in his earlier analysis, followed a hunch that there was an easy fix for us by substituting one packing for another, and we buttoned this up. The new packing is cheaper, but we verified that our initial cost estimate for packing had been so conservative that the new packing actually fit the assumed price better. I am aware at this time of no outright error in our report. People may find some, and if they do I hope they will tell me about them. 2. Item a. In my view, the experts (specifically Keith, Lackner, and Eisenberger) were given adequate time to interact with us. Our project took two years. We established groundrules at the front end that there would be an arms-length relationship and (confirmed more than once) that as a matter of policy we would not learn confidential information. All three presented to us at our kick-off meeting in March 2009, reviewed a draft (along with almost 20 others) in April 2010, and communicated repeatedly with us. I had the personal goal of being sure that the key ideas in their work were understood by our committee and commented upon in our report. Nonetheless, none of the three of them is happy with the result. One comment all three would make is that they would have done the study differently. They would have asked what air capture could cost if one were to assume success in the presence of risk; our committee felt that in the absence of reviewable published data, this was an illegitimate task. We decided to include one cost estimate based on a benchmark design, resulting in a system whose cost is probably quite a lot higher than $600/tCO2, and in the process, by careful attention to methodology, the reader can learn how to think about costs. Personally, I now appreciate (and the reader will too who works through the calculation) that the most underestimated cost factor is the pressure drop as air moves through the contactor, which enters not only as a an energy cost but also through its impact on “net carbon,” even for largely decarbonized power. All three experts are working on low-pressure-drop systems for this reason. Item b. I know of no comparable study. We call explicitly for some group to do some comparable analysis of biological air capture: afforestation, biochar, BECS – maybe one study for each. In that instance it will be critical to understand what scale-up looks like: small-scale deployment is cheap and could have major co-benefits. But how much planetary engineering is entailed if one aims for the reduction of atmospheric CO2 by 1 ppm per year for a hundred years – negative carbon on a monumental scale? 3. ASAP means “as soon as possible.” I think one needs to be careful with such language. If one is in a car, one can slam on the brakes or brake carefully. Both could be called smallest-possible-distance braking, but the meaning of “possible” would
[geo] Re: Cost of Air Capture and the APS report
Robert, Setting aside SRM for the moment, have you ever revisited the wedges paper to incorporate the full suite of potential CDR strategies? This strikes me as an obvious way to broaden the wedge concept. I imagine this has already been done one way or another Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/ On Jun 21, 5:14 pm, David Keith ke...@ucalgary.ca wrote: Of course it's not only an emergency strategy. Each group that has begun to think about it seriously has realized that. I said just this to the group in Lima an hour ago. David From: Alvia Gaskill [mailto:agask...@nc.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 3:07 PM To: soco...@princeton.edu; rongretlar...@comcast.net Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com; David Keith Subject: Re: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report I leave the Lima group with a final thought. Is SRM only an emergency strategy? What are the pros and cons of a continuous ground-bass deployment of 1 W/m^2 of stratospheric aerosol negative forcing, as an overall helper on the margin and as a way of learning about larger deployment? No, it shouldn't only be considered as an emergency option, a term which has never been adequately defined anyway and tends to be used as a defense against the media and the opponents of geoengineering by those working in the field who can't or don't want to pardon the expression, take the heat. Paul Crutzen included use of stratospheric aerosols at about this level of negative forcing to replace the loss of tropospheric sulfate from pollution controls and others have made similar proposals (including me). To get to some kind of full-scale offset of AGW forcing (back to pre-industrial from today or some future date) you have to pass through 1 W/m2 anyway. Plus, a slowdown of warming now means less ice melted that we can't replace in the future (given what we know about how difficult that will be). This applies to cloud brightening as well or some other technology that could achieve the same impact. But i also note that to get to 1 W/m2 you have to get through 0.1 and 0.2 and 0.3, etc. You have to start somewhere. - Original Message - From: Robert Socolowmailto:soco...@princeton.edu To: rongretlar...@comcast.netmailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com ; ke...@ucalgary.camailto:ke...@ucalgary.ca Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 2:57 Subject: RE: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report Ron, Ken, and others: Given that the Lima meeting is in its middle day today, let me push everything aside to write answers to Ron's questions. I am speaking only for myself. 1. Yes, there is only one change, aside from formatting, in the June 1 version of the APS report. We say so on the second page of the preface. As we were issuing the unformatted version at the end of April, David Keith identified a clear mistake in our report, involving the pressure drop per meter for a specific packing material, which we had carried forward from a 2006 paper. Fortunately, one member of our committee, Marco Mazzotti, was an author of that paper. With one of his co-authors, he updated his earlier work with new information from the manufacturer of the packing, additionally found an error in his earlier analysis, followed a hunch that there was an easy fix for us by substituting one packing for another, and we buttoned this up. The new packing is cheaper, but we verified that our initial cost estimate for packing had been so conservative that the new packing actually fit the assumed price better. I am aware at this time of no outright error in our report. People may find some, and if they do I hope they will tell me about them. 2. Item a. In my view, the experts (specifically Keith, Lackner, and Eisenberger) were given adequate time to interact with us. Our project took two years. We established groundrules at the front end that there would be an arms-length relationship and (confirmed more than once) that as a matter of policy we would not learn confidential information. All three presented to us at our kick-off meeting in March 2009, reviewed a draft (along with almost 20 others) in April 2010, and communicated repeatedly with us. I had the personal goal of being sure that the key ideas in their work were understood by our committee and commented upon in our report. Nonetheless, none of the three of them is happy with the result. One comment all three would make is that they would have done the study differently. They would have asked what air capture could cost if one were to assume success in the presence of risk; our committee felt that in the absence of reviewable published data, this was an illegitimate task. We decided to include one cost estimate based on a benchmark design, resulting in a system whose cost is
Re: [geo] HOME/ETC Group Targets IPCC
Ken, I highly agree with your management philosophy on this issue. Any organized effort along these lines should be as passive as possible and not be a news maker but a respected news reporter. Also, any organization which takes on this role will be a focal point for fringe attacks and thus will need to be unflappable. Also, this type of effort would seem like a good starting point for an eventual formal Society for Geoengineering Studies. This initial website effort could end up eventually evolving into the On Line Journal of the Society for Geoengineering Studies. I will continue to look for a current group which could fill this need. No luck so far. Michael On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 7:55 AM, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@gmail.com wrote: Needless consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. It might be good if done well. I think key would be being as centrist and reasonable as possible. Make as few claims as possible as an organization. Make sure all such statements of the organization are well-founded and board approved. Avoid any statements that would make the organization seem outside the scientific or political mainstream. Balance this with rapid response to developments in the news cycle to maximize media exposure. Participate in NGO activities around meetings of the parties of various conventions. There are real political and strategic questions: is it better to promote a broad brush approach to reducing climate risk (including emission reduction, adaptation etc) or narrowly focus on CDR and/or SRM? (My preference would be the former.) Another question: is there a suitable existing org that would take this up as a campaign? Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu +1 650 704 7212 http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab Sent from a limited-typing keyboard On Jun 19, 2011, at 1:47, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: It doesn't need a lot of money to do do this. Some time ago I suggested a formal membership organisation, which would be the obvious focus for media attention At the time ken argued against the idea, and it seemed to die at that point. Is there now any support for establishing a geoengineering studies society A On 19 Jun 2011 00:57, Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com voglerl...@gmail.com wrote: -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- *Michael Hayes* *360-708-4976* http://www.wix.com/voglerlake/vogler-lake-web-site -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
RE: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report
Not having attended the Lima meeting, I am likely missing nuances connected with the question is SRM an emergency strategy? Having said that, my two cents observation would be that it is a bit early to be declaring definitively that SRM is or is not only an emergency strategy. For me the answer to that question would turn on how large the risks might be from massive SRM deployment compared to the risks of a failure to deploy. As we increase our knowledge of the plausible risks and plausible efficacy of broad-scale SRM deployment, we may judge that it is safe enough and powerful enough as a risk reducer to justify deployment for non-emergency purposes but I would be surprised if there were a robust basis for those conclusions today. David From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David Keith Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 5:14 PM To: Alvia Gaskill; soco...@princeton.edu; rongretlar...@comcast.net Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report Of course it's not only an emergency strategy. Each group that has begun to think about it seriously has realized that. I said just this to the group in Lima an hour ago. David From: Alvia Gaskill [mailto:agask...@nc.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 3:07 PM To: soco...@princeton.edu; rongretlar...@comcast.net Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com; David Keith Subject: Re: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report I leave the Lima group with a final thought. Is SRM only an emergency strategy? What are the pros and cons of a continuous ground-bass deployment of 1 W/m^2 of stratospheric aerosol negative forcing, as an overall helper on the margin and as a way of learning about larger deployment? No, it shouldn't only be considered as an emergency option, a term which has never been adequately defined anyway and tends to be used as a defense against the media and the opponents of geoengineering by those working in the field who can't or don't want to pardon the expression, take the heat. Paul Crutzen included use of stratospheric aerosols at about this level of negative forcing to replace the loss of tropospheric sulfate from pollution controls and others have made similar proposals (including me). To get to some kind of full-scale offset of AGW forcing (back to pre-industrial from today or some future date) you have to pass through 1 W/m2 anyway. Plus, a slowdown of warming now means less ice melted that we can't replace in the future (given what we know about how difficult that will be). This applies to cloud brightening as well or some other technology that could achieve the same impact. But i also note that to get to 1 W/m2 you have to get through 0.1 and 0.2 and 0.3, etc. You have to start somewhere. - Original Message - From: Robert Socolow mailto:soco...@princeton.edu To: rongretlar...@comcast.net Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com ; ke...@ucalgary.ca Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 2:57 Subject: RE: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report Ron, Ken, and others: Given that the Lima meeting is in its middle day today, let me push everything aside to write answers to Ron's questions. I am speaking only for myself. 1. Yes, there is only one change, aside from formatting, in the June 1 version of the APS report. We say so on the second page of the preface. As we were issuing the unformatted version at the end of April, David Keith identified a clear mistake in our report, involving the pressure drop per meter for a specific packing material, which we had carried forward from a 2006 paper. Fortunately, one member of our committee, Marco Mazzotti, was an author of that paper. With one of his co-authors, he updated his earlier work with new information from the manufacturer of the packing, additionally found an error in his earlier analysis, followed a hunch that there was an easy fix for us by substituting one packing for another, and we buttoned this up. The new packing is cheaper, but we verified that our initial cost estimate for packing had been so conservative that the new packing actually fit the assumed price better. I am aware at this time of no outright error in our report. People may find some, and if they do I hope they will tell me about them. 2. Item a. In my view, the experts (specifically Keith, Lackner, and Eisenberger) were given adequate time to interact with us. Our project took two years. We established groundrules at the front end that there would be an arms-length relationship and (confirmed more than once) that as a matter of policy we would not learn confidential information. All three presented to us at our kick-off meeting in March 2009, reviewed a draft (along with almost 20 others) in April 2010, and communicated repeatedly with us. I
Re: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report
All this talk of limiting warming to such-and-such a rise just annoys me. We know far too little about carbon cycle feedbacks to be sure that we don't hit a tipping point. Maybe there just isn't a stable region at 3c? Maybe its 2c or 6c and nothing in between. We aren't even that certain of climate sensitivity, yet - and that's without all the tricky DMS, trop sulfur, cloud aerosol feedbacks and other nasties we barely understand The whole debate feels like playing with fire to me. Or like getting the whole population of the world to play chicken, running across the rail tracks of in front of a train. We'd do well to be far more precautionary, rather than hoping we know exactly how long it is before the train hits us. If any of the modellers on this list can prove me wrong, I'll paypal you twenty dollars. Any takers? A On 21 Jun 2011 22:56, rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote: Bob etal Thanks for a very complete response. I appreciate the rationale for limit of 2 or 3 or more degrees maximum, but am going to still push for a 1.5 degree limit (ala Jim Hansen) - thinking we might thereby get 2 or 2.5. I feel we could even do 1.5 if we got serious - and of course we are not. I'm pretty sure the smaller temperature rises are the cheaper - not the more expensive - approach Re item 2b and a CDR analysis, I agree we need one (or more). Some LCA's are beginning to appear for Biochar - many PhD theses in the woks I'll bet. Re 1 ppm per year for 100 years - Jim Hansen is trying for a quicker response (in part because he starts sooner and lower). I'd appreciate a thought on the needed Gt C/yr to accompany your 1 ppm per annum. More or less than 3? (still trying to understand the way the ocean will react over 50 (Hansen's) years.) Re your last paragraphs and 1 W/m2 - I am going to pass, until I hear a lot more. You have an interesting use of conservative and liberal in here. Ron - Original Message - From: Robert Socolow soco...@princeton.edu To: rongretlar...@comcast.net Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com, ke...@ucalgary.ca Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 12:57:14 PM Subject: RE: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report Ron, Ken, and others: Given that the Lima meeting is in its middle day today, let me push everything aside to write answers to Ron’s questions. I am speaking only for myself. 1. Yes, there is only one change, aside from formatting, in the June 1 version of the APS report. We say so on the second page of the preface. As we were issuing the unformatted version at the end of April, David Keith identified a clear mistake in our report, involving the pressure drop per meter for a specific packing material, which we had carried forward from a 2006 paper. Fortunately, one member of our committee, Marco Mazzotti, was an author of that paper. With one of his co-authors, he updated his earlier work with new information from the manufacturer of the packing, additionally found an error in his earlier analysis, followed a hunch that there was an easy fix for us by substituting one packing for another, and we buttoned this up. The new packing is cheaper, but we verified that our initial cost estimate for packing had been so conservative that the new packing actually fit the assumed price better. I am aware at this time of no outright error in our report. People may find some, and if they do I hope they will tell me about them. 2. Item a. In my view, the experts (specifically Keith, Lackner, and Eisenberger) were given adequate time to interact with us. Our project took two years. We established groundrules at the front end that there would be an arms-length relationship and (confirmed more than once) that as a matter of policy we would not learn confidential information. All three presented to us at our kick-off meeting in March 2009, reviewed a draft (along with almost 20 others) in April 2010, and communicated repeatedly with us. I had the personal goal of being sure that the key ideas in their work were understood by our committee and commented upon in our report. Nonetheless, none of the three of them is happy with the result. One comment all three would make is that they would have done the study differently. They would have asked what air capture could cost if one were to assume success in the presence of risk; our committee felt that in the absence of reviewable published data, this was an illegitimate task. We decided to include one cost estimate based on a benchmark design, resulting in a system whose cost is probably quite a lot higher than $600/tCO2, and in the process, by careful attention to methodology, the reader can learn how to think about costs. Personally, I now appreciate (and the reader will too who works through the calculation) that the most underestimated cost factor is the pressure drop as air moves through the contactor, which enters not only as a an energy cost but also through its impact on “net carbon,” even for largely decarbonized
Re: [geo] Geo as emergency strategy
Hi all, The term emergency situation or a state of emergency can get things going that otherwise wouldn't eventuate. Let's imagine for a moment that the world did conclude that we're in an emergency situation. This would have a huge impact on cost projections, in a number of ways. As to capital cost, DAC may be run by the Department of Energy (DOE) without a need for a return on investment. The fact that CO2 is removed from the atmosphere is the goal, the return on investment so to say, and this could be organized through regulation. As an example, Europe plans to add an extra price to international flight from January 1, 2012. So, let's imagine mandatory fees were imposed on airfares, to could bring in $200/t CO2. This could finance DAC with minimal overhead and on a budget-neutral basis. Let's have another look at the costs. Without Return on Investments, and while depreciating the cost of equipment over a longer term, say 25 years, capital costs could be restricted to less than $100/t CO2. Operational costs could also be lower, and be restricted mainly to maintenance, labor and chemicals (in this case, the DOE would fit operations in with existing operations). Using an estimate of 90$/ton CO2 captured would still keep the costs under $290/t captured. As to power requirements, in a state of emergency, the number of wind turbines would increase dramatically. Since wind blows mainly at night, much wind energy is produced at times when there is little or no demand for electricity on the grid. By operating mainly on off-peak hours, DAC could use energy that might otherwise go to waste. If energy for heating for DAC similarly came from renewables, cost associated with power requirements may be minimal. Finally, there's the cost of transport and sequestration. The advantage of DAC is that it can be located at many places, so this latter cost would be relatively low, while it could also be partly avoided by industrial use of CO2, such as production of carbon fiber (e.g. for EVs), use of CO2 in algae bags, etc. But even when sequestered in old mines or other places, total cost of DAC run by the DOE (in a state of emergency) could remain under $200/t CO2 captured, if emergency measures were put in place, which would also avoid costly litigation, rights-of-way issues, etc. On the other hand, coal fired power plants would be worse off in such a state of emergency. It would result in higher prices for emissions, which would not help the case for carbon capture at power plants. Such power plants cause the highest emissions, so the extra cost for the energy they use locally will have to be incorporated in the cost of capture, since the power needed for air capture at power plants would come from the power plant. The cost of power produced at coal-fired power plants currently doesn't take into account the currently-externalized costs of coal, which a recent analysis puts at some $345.3 billion. That would add close to 17.8¢/kWh to the price of electricity produced from coal. By comparison, the average residential price of electricity is 12¢/kWh. In conclusion, DAC would make sense in the world that accepted the need to urgently reduce atmospheric levels of carbon, since there are only a few ways to achieve this. But even if the world doesn't accept (yet) that we're in an emergency situation, it makes sense to be prepared. Technologies such as DAC need time to be developed. In case of emergencies, we may not have enough time for RD, testing, checking and organizing things. Cheers! Sam Carana On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 8:39 AM, David Keith ke...@ucalgary.ca wrote: David I agree with your statements about risks. But, I was not drawing a conclusion about what should be done. I agree with you that we cannot yet say if it should be should be employed in non-emergency situations, or for that matter in emergency situations. I am saying that as you dig into it the distinction between emergency and non-emergency looks ever less clear. As a side note I think many of my colleagues like to frame SRM as emergency response only because it seems less threatening. The thinking is, who could oppose something in a dire emergency? I think this overemphasis on emergency hobbles the real debates we face. SRM will quite possibly provide a means to limit climate damages to significant parts the global population even without any emergency, but because it doesn't perfectly compensate for CO2 driven warming it will be unequal and we will have hard governance challenges between winners and losers. Just as we do over CO2 itself. In any case, a good assessment should consider the range of ways in which SRM might be used without prejudging the outcome. Yours, David From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Hawkins, Dave Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 4:09 PM To: David Keith; Alvia Gaskill; soco...@princeton.edu; rongretlar...@comcast.net Cc:
Re: [geo] Re: Tropospheric Injection of Diatoms
Thanks for this. I do hope the IPCC will take this on board as well, realizing that geoengineering also encompasses such ways to tackle methane. Cheers! Sam Carana On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 11:07 AM, M V Bhaskar bhaskarmv...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Micheal Thanks. Your proposal is quite interesting. A clarification - We are not advocating use of micro Diatoms, we are advocating use of Nano Silica based micro nutrients in waterways, these cause naturally present Diatoms to bloom. Since atmosphere would not contain Diatoms, Pico Diatoms can perhaps be used along with our nano powder. The biggest advantage is that whatever falls onto oceans unconsumed in the atmosphere, will bloom in the oceans, so nothing is wasted. This would be a sort of SRM + Ocean Fertilization scheme. This might be done through laminating the dried preparation with biologically neutral reflective material (white powdered sugar?). Diatomaceous Earth may be the best solution. There are mountains of these all over the world. http://www.squidoo.com/fossilflour Scroll down for some very good photos. regards Bhaskar On Jun 22, 3:11 am, Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Folks, This is a conceptual sketch on the use of a biological aerosol. It is a very raw concept, yet I found it an interesting thought. *Tropospheric Injection of Micro Diatoms * *A Combined SRM/CCS Proposal with Long Term Implications for* *Enhanced Hydrate Burial and General Ocean Acidification Mitigation* *A Brief Conceptual Sketch Offered to the Google Geoengineering Group* Diatoms are ubiquitous to the waters of this planet and they all have self regulating biological features which makes them ideal for GE use on a regional or global scale. It is estimated that there are approximately 2 million species, yet only a fraction have been studied. This proposal does not call out for any particular species. I leave that determination to others. In general, they play an important role on many different levels. Diatoms offer O2 production, CO2 capture and sequestration along with long term hydrate burial. The potential for diatoms to produce biofuel is well known but that issue is outside of this proposal. Through my discussions with M.V. Bhaskar, I have become aware that micro diatoms can be prepared in a dry form as a means to seed bodies of water to produce artificial diatom blooms for enhanced O2 saturation. This conceptual sketch proposes that this type of material be considered for atmospheric aerosol injection as a form of combined SRM/CCS/Enhanced Hydrate Burial and Ocean Acidification Mitigation. :A minimum of seven main technical issues concerning this type of biological aerosol medium can be anticipated. 1. *Will this form of aerosol stay suspended for a reasonable time?* The size of micro diatoms are such that proper dispersal could produce an aerosol which would stay suspended for a significantly reasonable periods of time. The engineering of the dispersal method is similar to previous aerosol concepts. The suspension time will depend on many factors ranging from altitude of injection, latitude of injection (atmospheric cell characteristics) and general tropospheric weather conditions. The rate (if any) of atmospheric moisture absorption needs further understanding. If it is found that this medium does absorb atmospheric moisture, this could represent a means to reduce that primary green house gas, as well as, possibly providing a means for cloud nucleation/brightening. 2. *Will the diatom aerosol reflect SR?* Typically, this diatom preparation is brown. I believe it may be possible that the diatom material can be engineered to be reflective. This might be done through laminating the dried preparation with biologically neutral reflective material (white powdered sugar?). Finding the right laminating material which does not substantially degrade suspension time, seed viability or produce accumulated environmental adverse effects will need investigating along with the associated high volume production needs. 3. *Will the diatom material remain viable through the aerosol phase into the aquatic environment?* Tropospheric injection avoids the higher altitude environmental stress issues. Such as, high UV, low ambient pressure and extreme low temperatures, which may effect seed viability. However, the possibility of laminating the material to address the high altitude concerns may also be possible in the future and will need further investigation. The added complications, relative to seed survival, of stratospheric injection indicates that tropospheric injection should be the initial deployment consideration. Stratospheric injection may be avoided if coordinated and tailored regional tropospheric efforts can be developed. 4. *Will
Re: [geo] HOME/ETC Group Targets IPCC
Hi Michael, Thanks for all your useful comments; there is a lot I want to address about them. - Michael writes: I would also like to comment on your statement; *I see our root problems as poor land use, socio-economic systems that depend on fossil-fuel combustion, and uneven development. So strategies should be assessed on their ability to contribute to solving these, and downgraded if they can't.*. Holly, that is social engineeringnot GE! Yes, it's true that there is some social engineering involved... but I think the Anthropocene challenges the Cartesian nature / society divide for many people. We have changed our atmospheric composition due to patterns that are very much social and cultural: it's not just burning of hydrocarbons or cutting of biomass that created 394 ppm. It's love for the open road, jet-set glamour, dietary patterns, corrupt regimes that allow illegal logging, aspirations of the Chinese middle class, whatever. All of these sociocultural factors have helped lead us to this juncture. More explicitly on-point to this thread: people who vociferously oppose geoengineering believe geoengineering to be a social project with nefarious social aims, and they don't see the natural / social divide in the way a scientist might. They are problematizing global warming differently. And it can be difficult to have a conversation between two parties who have a different conceptualization of exactly what problem they're trying to address. So any PR strategy would do well to speak to the problematization problem, I think. - Michael also writes that the original core of the GE concept is not so broad that uneven development even shows up on the radar. This is of course true; I mention uneven development because this is what prevents us from making process with the UNFCCC process. To briefly frame the situation: many developing countries see the developed world as having developed with use of their resources, at their expense under colonialism, and with the benefit of fossil fuels. They think they are entitled to a fair allowance of catch-up emissions and that developed countries should pay for what they've already emitted. Developed countries don't want to pay up (especially since many developing countries have corrupt regimes) and they are heavily invested in existing fossil fuel structures. This development dilemma, because it is what keeps us from just going and cutting emissions, is the dilemma that causes the need for geoengineering. So let's entertain a thought-experiment: what if it was possible that geoengineering could actually contribute to solving this dilemma? - This brings me to Michael's excellent question: How can any GE concept address the social issues you are attaching to the evaluation criteria? This is perhaps easier to see with strategies like afforestation techniques, biochar, etc.: it's possible to introduce an implementation design that could be combined with development mechanisms so that developing countries, or even communities, could be financially rewarded for undertaking them and benefit from them, and have their land use and energy situations improved. I mean, this is already a part of the UNFCCC process. It's not just CDR techniques that could potentially address the social development dilemma, but also reflective crop varieties and grasslands (especially if combined with ecological restoration of degraded lands). Or see Michael's recent post on diatoms: *This GE approach offers at least two *non* global warming mitigation related benefits to society. *First would be the overall water quality improvement in the operational area due to the increase in saturated O2 levels provided by the seeded diatom blooms. Second would be that fisheries may improve due to the increase in the marine food production rates at the micro level. Fishery improvement has all kinds of social benefits. Your phrase general regional ecological enhancement is really key: regional ecological enhancements are often social enhancements, especially when applied with the intention to be so. Clearly, a lot of potential social solutions aren't inherent in the technologies, but in their implementation. But because the research process is entangled with the implementation of the technologies, I do think scientists can keep in mind how their research would be scaled-up or deployed, and play a role in it. (For example, the Internet had many influences and funders in its nascency-- DARPA, CERN, NSF, etc.-- but its structure, and even its social role, might be different if Tim Berners-Lee had patented hypertext. Not a perfect example, but the evolution of every tech, from pharma to farming, has some social impact and story.) I know I haven't fleshed out any of these ideas at much, but I am writing a longer paper on this topic. Final note on PR: Michael, you proposed a website some posts back about a PR organization. My humble two cents, if you or others go through
[geo] Carbon sequestered in oceans - Diatoms, etc.
Hi All After studying Diatoms for past 3 years, I have listed a few questions for which I could not find answers on the internet. Would appreciate any help in finding answers. 1. What portion of the estimated 38000 billion tons of carbon sequestered in the oceans is due to biological processes (phytoplankton, zooplankton, fish, etc) in the oceans and what portion is due to chemical processes (calcium carbonate due to chemical reactions, etc)? 2. Of the total amount sequestered due to biological processes how much is due to dead phytoplankton falling to the ocean floor, how much is due to zooplankton, how much is due to fish, whales, etc? 3. Of the amount sequestered by dead phytoplankton falling to the ocean floor how is due to each group of phytoplankton, Diatoms, Cyanobacteria, Green Algae, Dinoflagellates, Coccolithophores, etc? 4. Has the amount of carbon sequestered in oceans increased or decreased over the past few decades and centuries? 5. Is the amount of carbon sequestered each year in the oceans increasing or decreasing, i.e., are they now acting as sinks or are they releasing CO2? 6. Does Ocean acidification indicate that carbon earlier sequestered in the depths of the ocean is now being released to the surface? 7. What is the projection for the future for carbon sequestration in oceans - without human intervention (business as usual scenario)? 8. Has fish biomass declined in the past few hundred years since Industrial Revolution (perhaps from 8 to 14 billion tons 200 years ago to 0.8 to 2 billion tons at present)? Whales have certainly been decimated in the 19th and 20th century. 9. How has the decline in the fish biomass impacted carbon sequestration? 10 How has the decline in whale population in the 19th and 20th centuries impacted Diatom biomass? 11 Has the decline in whales caused a slow down of recycling of iron and other micro nutrients ? 12 Has Diatom biomass of the oceans increased or decreased in the past few decades / centuries? 13 Why have the number of Dead Zones increased to over 400 over the past 50 years? 14 Why are cyanobacteria blooms causing dead zones in coastal waters? 15 Are Dead zones Carbon exporting zones, they are HNHC area - why are they dead inspite of high level of chlorophyll? 16 Eutrophic lakes are also HNHC areas, why are they viewed with concern? Why is the dissolved oxygen level of eutrophic lakes low inspite of High Chlorophyll? Why do fish kills take place in eutrophic water, inspite of or perhaps because of phytoplankton abundance? 17 Should a Ocean Fertilization product be first tested in inland waterways and coastal waterways to prevent eutrophication and dead zone problem, before being used in deep sea. Sites such as these do not give much details. http://genomicscience.energy.gov/carboncycle/index.shtml#page=news regards Bhaskar -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
[geo] Air capture prize gets thumbs up from the US CBO
Unlike the Virgin Earth Challenge, perhaps the US government might get serious about awarding an air capture prize, though for less money. May the best idea win (this time). -Greg http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billreport.xpd?bill=s112-757type=cbo Jun 17, 2011 - Report Budget Report for S. 757: A bill to provide incentives to encourage the development and implementation of...http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billreport.xpd?bill=s112-757type=cbo A new Congressional Budget Office Report is available: S. 757 would authorize appropriations for the Department of Energy (DOE) to provide competitive financial awards to support the development of advanced technologies to capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Because the bill also would reduce an existing authorization of appropriations for other activities, CBO estimates that implementing S. 757 would have no significant net impact on... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
