[geo] Re: Meanwhile, in CDR news...
I'm wondering if anyone can respond to these questions: I could be missing this, but how long is it estimated to take for the devices to capture each ton of CO2? If the systems were installed to capture coal plant emissions, I'd imagine that the capture rate would be maximized. However installing the systems outside of those sources might lower the capture rate to the point that the system becomes impractical (i.e. like installing a wind farm in a location that's simply not windy enough on average) - The cost estimate of $100/ton of CO2 includes only the operational cost of electricity. Is there some kind of a rough estimate for device production cost, system infrastructure cost and operational costs besides electricity (replacing absorbent etc)? On Lockheed rocket programs, we always included these to compare options more fairly. I realize that the report states: Lacking a demonstration of an optimized system at scale precludes a precise estimation of costs and revenues, but maybe enough is known to make a rough cut now. FYI, on the Space Shuttle program the initial estimate for delivering payloads to orbit was $100/lb. That was a key decision point to justify the program, but in reality the cost ended up being about $1,000/lb. So even the best and brightest were too optimistic or overly simplistic in their approach (i.e. it's very easy to do). A rule of thumb we used on Lockheed rocket programs was to estimate costs in as much detail as possible for both production and operational costs, then we would multiply that by 1.5 times. This was surprisingly accurate when projects were all said and done.. Maybe a factor like this could be used for geoengineering estimates to make them more realistic. Best Regards- Mark Massmann On Saturday, June 1, 2013 11:33:56 AM UTC-7, Greg Rau wrote: Our latest offering on abiotic CDR can be found here: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/05/30/1222358110.full.pdf Some highlights: air CO2 captured and safely stored - check carbon-negative H2 produced - check ocean alkalinity beneficially increased, OA and impacts reduced - check $100/tonne CO2 mitigated, about the cost of CCS - check OK, more research is needed to better evaluate all of this. While trying to locate the funds to do this, perhaps the APS would like to reconvene its crack, air capture evaluation team and have a go. In any case, constructive comments and criticism invited. Another point we make is that reducing air CO2 need not involve air capture. By adding hydroxide to regions of the ocean that naturally degas to the atmosphere (e.g. upwelling systems), excess ocean CO2 is consumed and the natural ocean CO2 flux to the atmosphere (300 GT/yr) is reduced along with the air CO2 burden, sidestepping the need for more difficult air capture. Air scrubbing is not necessary; cost effective and safe ways of producing and applying (geo)chemical base to CO2-degassing regions of the ocean would seem an easier alternative, especially considering that effective air capture ultimately also requires effective ocean CO2 removal (Cao and Caldeira). Bio approaches that could reduce CO2 flux to air include OIF, biochar, and CROPS, but while likely cheaper, these don't also generate ocean alkalinity and supergreen H2. Other ideas? Greg -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Re: Meanwhile, in CDR news...
Mark: I have an article in this month's Physics World magazine that answers some of these questions: “Mopping Up Carbon,” Physics World, June 2013, pp. 23-27. http://www.davidappell.com/articles/PWJun13Appell-air_capture.pdf David On 6/2/2013 8:05 AM, Mark Massmann wrote: I'm wondering if anyone can respond to these questions: I could be missing this, but how long is it estimated to take for the devices to capture each ton of CO2? If the systems were installed to capture coal plant emissions, I'd imagine that the capture rate would be maximized. However installing the systems outside of those sources might lower the capture rate to the point that the system becomes impractical (i.e. like installing a wind farm in a location that's simply not windy enough on average) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[geo] A bibliometric analysis of climate engineering research - Belter - 2013 - Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change - Wiley Online Library
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.229/abstract The past five years have seen a dramatic increase in the number of media and scientific publications on the topic of climate engineering, or geoengineering, and some scientists are increasingly calling for more research on climate engineering as a possible supplement to climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies. In this context, understanding the current state of climate engineering research can help inform policy discussions and guide future research directions. Bibliometric analysis—the quantitative analysis of publications—is particularly applicable to fields with large bodies of literature that are difficult to summarize by traditional review methods. The multidisciplinary nature of the published literature on climate engineering makes it an ideal candidate for bibliometric analysis. Publications on climate engineering are found to be relatively recent (more than half of all articles during 1988–2011 were published since 2008), include a higher than average percentage of nonresearch articles (30% compared with 8–15% in related scientific disciplines), and be predominately produced by countries located in the Northern Hemisphere and speaking English. The majority of this literature focuses on land-based methods of carbon sequestration, ocean iron fertilization, and solar radiation management and is produced with little collaboration among research groups. This study provides a summary of existing publications on climate engineering, a perspective on the scientific underpinnings of the global dialogue on climate engineering, and a baseline for quantitatively monitoring the development of climate engineering research in the future. WIREs Clim Change 2013. doi: 10.1002/wcc.229 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Re: Meanwhile, in CDR news...
Thanks, David, very nice review. Where our technology departs from the higher profile abiotic methods you discuss is: 1) expensively concentrated CO2 is not formed (or stored), 2) reactions occur at ambient T and P - exotic chemicals and conditions are avoided (so far), 3) excess ocean rather than excess air CO2 can be mitigated, avoiding the need for more complex air scrubbing technology. Why go to the added expense/effort of getting air CO2 into solution to then do chemistry when vast areas of the surface ocean are already supersaturated in CO2? Doing the chemistry there completely avoids the giant land footprint and energy required for air scrubbing that you mention, as well as avoids the need for molecular CO2 sequestration or use. Obviously, the safety of doing this in the ocean needs to be researched, but generating ocean alkalinity would seem an improvement over our current ocean acidification program. I'm not alone in my thinking; this builds on Kheshgi (1995), House et al. (2007), and Harvey (2008) among others. -Greg From: David Appell david.app...@gmail.com To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Cc: m2des...@cablespeed.com Sent: Sun, June 2, 2013 10:55:22 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Meanwhile, in CDR news... Mark: I have an article in this month's Physics World magazine that answers some of these questions: “Mopping Up Carbon,” Physics World, June 2013, pp. 23-27. http://www.davidappell.com/articles/PWJun13Appell-air_capture.pdf David On 6/2/2013 8:05 AM, Mark Massmann wrote: I'm wondering if anyone can respond to these questions: I could be missing this, but how long is it estimated to take for the devices to capture each ton of CO2? If the systems were installed to capture coal plant emissions, I'd imagine that the capture rate would be maximized. However installing the systems outside of those sources might lower the capture rate to the point that the system becomes impractical (i.e. like installing a wind farm in a location that's simply not windy enough on average) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Re: Meanwhile, in CDR news...
David Have you any similar cost estimates for the biotic CDR approaches, such as afforestation, BECCES and biochar? Ron On Jun 2, 2013, at 11:55 AM, David Appell david.app...@gmail.com wrote: Mark: I have an article in this month's Physics World magazine that answers some of these questions: “Mopping Up Carbon,” Physics World, June 2013, pp. 23-27. http://www.davidappell.com/articles/PWJun13Appell-air_capture.pdf David On 6/2/2013 8:05 AM, Mark Massmann wrote: I'm wondering if anyone can respond to these questions: I could be missing this, but how long is it estimated to take for the devices to capture each ton of CO2? If the systems were installed to capture coal plant emissions, I'd imagine that the capture rate would be maximized. However installing the systems outside of those sources might lower the capture rate to the point that the system becomes impractical (i.e. like installing a wind farm in a location that's simply not windy enough on average) -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Re: Meanwhile, in CDR news...
On 6/2/2013 12:58 PM, Ron wrote: Have you any similar cost estimates for the biotic CDR approaches, such as afforestation, BECCES and biochar? No -- I just didn't have room to cover everything, or even most ideas. A nice, longer review article that does is Negative Emissions Technologies, Dr Niall R McGlashan, Dr Mark H W Workman, Ben Caldecott and Professor Nilay Shah, Grantham Institute for Climate Change, Briefing paper No 8, October 2012 https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/climatechange/Public/pdfs/Briefing%20Papers/Briefing%20Paper%208.pdf David -- David Appell, independent science writer e: david.app...@gmail.com w: http://www.davidappell.com t: @davidappell b: http://davidappell.blogspot.com m: Salem, OR -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Re: Meanwhile, in CDR news...
A similar version of the McGlashan et al paper was published at: Process Safety and Environmental Protection Volume 90, Issue 6, November 2012, Pages 501–510 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957582012001164 and in fact the entire issue was devoted to negative emissions technologies: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/09575820/90/6 David On 6/2/2013 1:10 PM, David Appell wrote: On 6/2/2013 12:58 PM, Ron wrote: Have you any similar cost estimates for the biotic CDR approaches, such as afforestation, BECCES and biochar? No -- I just didn't have room to cover everything, or even most ideas. A nice, longer review article that does is Negative Emissions Technologies, Dr Niall R McGlashan, Dr Mark H W Workman, Ben Caldecott and Professor Nilay Shah, Grantham Institute for Climate Change, Briefing paper No 8, October 2012 https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/climatechange/Public/pdfs/Briefing%20Papers/Briefing%20Paper%208.pdf David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] profile of me in San Francisco Chronicle today, discussion geoengineering in a broader context
Ken cc List: 1. Thanks for the leads - mostly related to ocean acidification - a prime ethics subject for those on this list mostly interested in CDR . 2. The information you supplied leads one to two short videos from two months ago,at: http://www.youtube.com/user/CarnegieGlobEcology/videos From these, one can gain a pretty good idea of how your experiment was being carried out . I recommend them to others. 3. But those videos (which you do well) were from February. Can you give a hint of what you later learned (scientifically)? Jana's answers leaves one in suspense. (Maybe create #3 soon?) 4. There must be many thousands of salt water aquaria around the world. Are any of these providing useful information on the impact of pH? 5. Before receiving your message below, I was preparing a short follow-up note (TBD) on this week's AEI 1 hr 40 minute meeting on SRM. I listened casually once, and decided to listen again, when I decided I had not once heard the words ocean acidification -the topic I should think would be of most importance when discussing SRM. Can you relate this recent Australian work to your work on SRM? Ron - Original Message - From: Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, June 2, 2013 3:09:22 PM Subject: [geo] profile of me in San Francisco Chronicle today, discussion geoengineering in a broader context Warning from climate science front lines http://www.sfchronicle.com/science/article/Warning-from-climate-science-front-lines-4569221.php?t=4f3395796547b02379 Moving geoengineering out from under dark shadows http://blog.sfgate.com/techchron/2013/06/01/moving-geoengineering-out-from-under-dark-shadows/ On the trail of global warming’s equally evil twin http://blog.sfgate.com/techchron/2013/06/01/on-the-trail-of-global-warmings-equally-evil-twin/ -- I happen to be in China now, and apparently Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Vimeo are all blocked (at least I can't get access to them from my hotel room). I never realized that these email groups can play a role in dissemination of information that the more up-to-date social media cannot play. ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira Caldeira Lab is hiring postdoctoral researchers. http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_employment.html Check out the profile of me on NPR's All Things Considered -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
