[geo] Symposium: Waste Management meets Biochar - Prospects for the climate? — PIK Research Portal
http://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/public-events/symposium-abfallwirtschaft-meets-biochar-2013-perspektiven-fuer-den-klimaschutz Symposium: Waste Management meets Biochar - Prospects for the climate? This year's 74th Symposium of the ANS eV presents the latest developments and practical applications on Biochar and the classical bio-waste treatment. This creative dialogue takes place under the patronage of the Federal Minister for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety Peter Altmaier. For more information, please refer to the organizer's website and please notice that this event will be in German! When Oct 01, 2013 09:30 AM to Oct 02, 2013 06:00 PM Where Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Telegraphenberg A 31, 14473 Potsdam, -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[geo] Field tests of solar climate engineering : Nature Climate Change : Nature Publishing Group
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n9/full/nclimate1987.html Field tests of solar climate engineering Stefan Schäfer, Peter J. Irvine, Anna-Maria Hubert,David Reichwein, Sean Low, Harald Stelzer, Achim Maas Mark G. Lawrence Nature Climate Change 3, 766 (2013) doi:10.1038/nclimate1987 Published online 28 August 2013 The international community has declared climate change a 'common concern of humankind'. Therefore, the development of 'climate engineering' (also known as geoengineering) techniques that aim to modify the global climate requires international cooperation on their governance. (truncated - apologies for cheesparing paywall! ) -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[geo] Climate Colab, Two of our proposals win in this round of competition ..
http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/10/planId/1304174 I hadn't been lobbying heavily for this proposal largely because I deemed the process stupid an the judges likely to be biased, but now that the process and judges have selected two of our proposals, one in the Energy Power Sector and one in the Geoengineering category, I am ready to say that this process looks to me to be both thoughtful and fair. Congratulations to Greg Rau for taking on the good fight. http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/10/planId/1304174 http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/20/planId/1304119 The full set of winners of this round, competing for the Grand Prize can be found here: http://climatecolab.org/community/-/blogs/2012-2013-climate-colab-contest-winners?_33_ I note that there was no judges choice under the category of geoengineering, which seems to be limited to CDR-type techniques: http://climatecolab.org/resources/-/wiki/Main/Comments+by+Expert+Reviewers+on+the+Geoengineering+Proposals http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/10/planId/1304174 Proposal for Electric power sector http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/10by The Planet Doctors Spontaneous Conversion of Power Plant CO2 to Dissolved Calcium Bicarbonate Pitch As in SO2 mitigation, spontaneously remove CO2 from power plant flue gas using wet limestone scrubbing. Description Summary Carbonate mineral weathering is a major absorber of excess CO2 at planetary scales: CO2 + H2O + CaCO3 -- Ca(HCO3)2aq. However, relying on this very slow natural process to consume excess CO2 would in the interim commit us to many millennia of climate impacts and ocean acidity (1). It is therefore relevant to find ways of cost-effectively accelerating this proven, natural (geo)chemistry in order to more quickly mitigate of our CO2 emissions, while also trying to rapidly transition to non-fossil energy sources. Modeling and lab studies have shown that contacting CO2-enriched gas with water and limestone is an effective way of spontaneously capturing and storing CO2 as dissolved calcium bicarbonate (2-7). This is termed Accelerated Weathering of Limestone – AWL. In laboratory tests, up to 97% of the CO2 in a dilute gas stream was removed using this method (11). Seawater would appear the best option for such systems, although other non-potable water sources (wastewater, saline ground water) could also be relevant at inland sites. An AWL total cost of $30/tonne CO2 avoided has been estimated, with $20/tonne being more likely at coastal power plants that already pump massive quantities of seawater for condenser cooling. The preceding mitigation cost ranges are a fraction of that reported for more conventional capture and underground storage of concentrated CO2 (CCS) when retrofitted to existing power plants (8). CO2 mitigation is not the only potential benefit of AWL. As in natural carbonate weathering, the dissolved Ca(HCO3)2 added to the ocean by the process will help to chemically offset the effects of CO2-induced ocean acidification (9-11). Despite its potential, AWL is lacking a demonstration at a scale that would prove its cost effectiveness, safety, and net environmental and societal benefit. It is proposed that these issues be evaluated and tested at a relevant scale by a team of scientists, engineers, and environmental, economics, legal, and social experts. gregrau http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/member/-/member/userId/1008921 Owner kencaldeirahttp://climatecolab.org/web/guest/member/-/member/userId/1237662 Member philrenforthhttp://climatecolab.org/web/guest/member/-/member/userId/1240272 Member http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/20/planId/1304119 Proposal for Geoengineering http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/20by Planet Physicians Saving the Planet, v2.0 Pitch Interested in air CO2 removal, carbon-negative fuel, saving the ocean, and redrawing the global energy map? Read further. Description Summary Regardless of our CO2 emissions, Nature eventually will return global CO2 to pre-human levels primarily via base (carbonate and silicate) rock weathering (1). Nature’s 100,000 year time frame for this process, however, means that unless we quickly intervene, the earth will unacceptably fry and acidify in the interim. Thus, it is of interest to consider building on and accelerating this proven, global scale geochemical CO2 mitigation process while we also strive to transition from our carbon-positive energy existence. We propose to research a process that simultaneously addresses both of these issues by merging rock weathering and renewable energy in a novel electrochemical process. It has been demonstrated (2-5) that strategically placing common rock minerals around the acidic anode of a standard, functioning saline water electrolysis cell not only produces H2, and O2 or Cl2, but also generates a
Re: [geo] Field tests of solar climate engineering : Nature Climate Change : Nature Publishing Group
And I would like to remind you all of this paper: Robock, Alan, Martin Bunzl, Ben Kravitz, and Georgiy Stenchikov, 2010: A test for geoengineering? /Science/, *327*, 530-531, doi:10.1126/science.1186237. http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/TestForGeoengineeringScience2010.pdf Alan Robock Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor Editor, Reviews of Geophysics Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751 Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 14 College Farm Road E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock http://twitter.com/AlanRobock On 9/6/2013 1:09 PM, Ken Caldeira wrote: The call to prudence by Schäfer et al is welcome, although I do think it is unclear exactly what constitutes a .solar climate engineering field experiment. The phrase field test of solar climate engineering cannot be unambiguously defined. (Please prove me wrong by providing an unambiguous definition that can attain consensus.) If I paint a one meter square with white paint on my dark asphalt driveway and measure the reflected sunlight, is that a solar climate engineering field test? It would seem that if my intent were to develop technologies that would ultimately modify climate at global scale, then the answer would likely be 'yes'. If the intent were simply to test which asphalt paints are easiest on the eyes, then the answer would likely be no. So, whether this is a solar geoengineering field test or not depends not on my actions, but on my intent. But what if someone else is funding this project, and they want to develop a solar geoengineering system but I just want driveway paints that is easier on the eyes (or vice versa)? Whose intention counts,that of the experimental scientist or that of the funder? It seems that if we want to have a workable regulatory system, which governance regime an action falls under should be determinable by a physical description of the action, and then the governance regime should take intent of the various parties involved in a project into account when determining whether expected benefits exceed expected damage in any particular case. Which governance regime applies should depend on a physical description of a proposed action. A governance regime could then take into consideration the intents of various parties in deciding whether to approve a particular project. We are asking for trouble if we require that issues of intent to be resolved in order to determine which governance regime applies. It seems that for a governance regime to be triggered, the risk of damage from a project must exceed some /de minimis/ level. However, Schäfer et al are correct in suggesting that even such/de minimis/ experiments could provoke a negative and ultimately counter-productive backlash, and therefore they are well-justified in counseling scientists and engineers to proceed cautiously and prudently even with such /de minimis /projects, abiding by an informal set of professional norms. ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 tel:%2B1%20650%20704%207212kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu mailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab@kencaldeira On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 3:39 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n9/full/nclimate1987.html Field tests of solar climate engineering Stefan Schäfer, Peter J. Irvine, Anna-Maria Hubert,David Reichwein, Sean Low, Harald Stelzer, Achim Maas Mark G. Lawrence Nature Climate Change 3, 766 (2013) doi:10.1038/nclimate1987 Published online 28 August 2013 The international community has declared climate change a 'common concern of humankind'. Therefore, the development of 'climate engineering' (also known as geoengineering) techniques that aim to modify the global climate requires international cooperation on their governance. (truncated - apologies for cheesparing paywall! ) -- 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 mailto:geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message
[geo] Re: Climate Colab, Two of our proposals win in this round of competition ..
I agree with Ken in that it is unfortunate that more proposals can't be promoted/supported. There were lots of other good ideas in this competition (and not entered – SRM?) that deserve RD attention, and ultimately we may need all of them to avert global meltdown and acidification. In the meantime we will do our best to represent CDR in this competition, and hope that it might generate greater CDR interest and funding from those who should be encouraging (rather than ignoring) such research (US DOE and NSF to name two). Thanks to those who voted for us and supported us thus far, and further input on how to proceed from here is invited. Regards, Greg From: Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edumailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu Date: Friday, September 6, 2013 7:50 AM To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com Cc: Default r...@llnl.govmailto:r...@llnl.gov Subject: Climate Colab, Two of our proposals win in this round of competition .. http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/10/planId/1304174 I hadn't been lobbying heavily for this proposal largely because I deemed the process stupid an the judges likely to be biased, but now that the process and judges have selected two of our proposals, one in the Energy Power Sector and one in the Geoengineering category, I am ready to say that this process looks to me to be both thoughtful and fair. Congratulations to Greg Rau for taking on the good fight. http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/10/planId/1304174 http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/20/planId/1304119 The full set of winners of this round, competing for the Grand Prize can be found here: http://climatecolab.org/community/-/blogs/2012-2013-climate-colab-contest-winners?_33_ I note that there was no judges choice under the category of geoengineering, which seems to be limited to CDR-type techniques: http://climatecolab.org/resources/-/wiki/Main/Comments+by+Expert+Reviewers+on+the+Geoengineering+Proposals http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/10/planId/1304174 Proposal for Electric power sector http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/10 by The Planet Doctors Spontaneous Conversion of Power Plant CO2 to Dissolved Calcium Bicarbonate Pitch As in SO2 mitigation, spontaneously remove CO2 from power plant flue gas using wet limestone scrubbing. Description Summary Carbonate mineral weathering is a major absorber of excess CO2 at planetary scales: CO2 + H2O + CaCO3 -- Ca(HCO3)2aq. However, relying on this very slow natural process to consume excess CO2 would in the interim commit us to many millennia of climate impacts and ocean acidity (1). It is therefore relevant to find ways of cost-effectively accelerating this proven, natural (geo)chemistry in order to more quickly mitigate of our CO2 emissions, while also trying to rapidly transition to non-fossil energy sources. Modeling and lab studies have shown that contacting CO2-enriched gas with water and limestone is an effective way of spontaneously capturing and storing CO2 as dissolved calcium bicarbonate (2-7). This is termed Accelerated Weathering of Limestone – AWL. In laboratory tests, up to 97% of the CO2 in a dilute gas stream was removed using this method (11). Seawater would appear the best option for such systems, although other non-potable water sources (wastewater, saline ground water) could also be relevant at inland sites. An AWL total cost of $30/tonne CO2 avoided has been estimated, with $20/tonne being more likely at coastal power plants that already pump massive quantities of seawater for condenser cooling. The preceding mitigation cost ranges are a fraction of that reported for more conventional capture and underground storage of concentrated CO2 (CCS) when retrofitted to existing power plants (8). CO2 mitigation is not the only potential benefit of AWL. As in natural carbonate weathering, the dissolved Ca(HCO3)2 added to the ocean by the process will help to chemically offset the effects of CO2-induced ocean acidification (9-11). Despite its potential, AWL is lacking a demonstration at a scale that would prove its cost effectiveness, safety, and net environmental and societal benefit. It is proposed that these issues be evaluated and tested at a relevant scale by a team of scientists, engineers, and environmental, economics, legal, and social experts. [http://climatecolab.org/image/user_male_portrait?screenName=gregraucompanyId=10112portraitId=0] gregrauhttp://climatecolab.org/web/guest/member/-/member/userId/1008921 Owner [http://climatecolab.org/image/user_male_portrait?screenName=kencaldeiracompanyId=10112portraitId=0] kencaldeirahttp://climatecolab.org/web/guest/member/-/member/userId/1237662 Member [http://climatecolab.org/image/user_male_portrait?screenName=philrenforthcompanyId=10112portraitId=0]
[geo] Climate Change's Silver Bullet? Our Interview With One Of The World's Top Geoengineering Scholars | ThinkProgress
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/06/2522511/clive-hamilton-anthropocene/ Climate Change’s Silver Bullet? Our Interview With One Of The World’s Top Geoengineering Scholars BY ARI PHILLIPS ON SEPTEMBER 6, 2013 AT 1:10 PM MELBOURNE, Australia — Since coming to Australia almost two months ago I’ve heard about Clive Hamilton in the process of reporting just about every story I’ve done. Then I picked up his new book Earthmasters: The Dawn of the Age of Climate Engineering and now I see what all the fuss is about.In all of the debates over how to address climate change, climate engineering — or geoengineering — is among the most contentious. It involves large-scale manipulation of the Earth’s climate using grand technological interventions, such as fertilizing the oceans with iron to absorb carbon dioxide or releasing sulfur into the atmosphere to reduce radiation. While its proponents call geoengineering a silver bullet for our climate woes, its skeptics are far more critical. Joe Romm, for one, likens geoengineering to a dangerous course of chemotherapy and radiation to treat a condition curable through diet and exercise — or, in this case, emissions reduction.According to the cover of Hamilton’s new book, “The potential risks are enormous. It is messing with nature on a scale we’ve never seen before, and it’s attracting a flood of interest from scientists, venture capitalists and oil companies.”Hamilton is an Australian author and public intellectual. Until 2008 he was the Executive Director of The Australia Institute, a progressive think tank that he founded in 1993. Now he’s Professor of Public Ethics at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, a joint center of Charles Stuart University and the University of Melbourne.His books include Requiem for a Species: Why we resist the truth about climate change, Scorcher: The dirty truth about climate change and Growth Fetishamongst others.Hamilton’s next book will be about the anthropocene — a new geologic era in which human activities have had a significant impact on the Earth’s ecosystems. He took some time to talk with me about this new era, the future of geoengineering and what it all means for humanity. This interview has been edited for clarity and length. How has the environmental community responded to your book on geoengineering? I remember back in late 1990s around Kyoto there was a great deal of resistance amongst environmentalists and climate activists, including myself, against any talk of adaptation. It was seen to be a capitulation to a kind of defeatism that we ought not to be talking about adaptation because that means that mitigation has failed. Eventually I think we all came around to view that some climate change is going to happen and therefore adaptation has to be considered. It’s better to have seat at the table, as it were, when adaptation is being discussed.I think we’re in the same stage now with geoengineering. Most environmentalists don’t want to know about it. Most climate activists don’t want to talk about it. There is a sense that in doing so you are conceding that it could well be possible that geoengineering will be necessary because the world community will continue to fail, perhaps even more egregiously, at responding to scientific warnings.But I wrote the book because I became aware in writing my previous book that the genie was out of the bottle: geoengineering was going to grow in importance. Therefore, climate campaigners and environmental groups sooner or later are going to have to engage in the issue. It’s a question of whether they start now or leave it for another five years, at which point the lobby backing geoengineering will be much more powerful and will have had an opportunity to frame it more inflexibly in the media and in broader public mind. Did you come across any big surprises while writing the book? There were a couple of big surprises. One was the extent of the geoengineering lobby and the links between the scientists and the investors. I developed a much stronger sense of the likelihood of a powerful geoengineering constituency emerging, which would — if it were not countered by a skeptical community of thinkers and campaigners — essentially take control of whole agenda. Plotting those links and laying them out was something that I go into quite a lot of detail over. At the same time it stimulated me to think about the military-industrial complex, the famous lobby group that help such sway in the U.S. in the middle of the 20th century.One thing I noticed while doing this research and looking at scientists involved was the density of the linkages with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. So I investigated further and thought it’s really quite astonishing the extent to which many, if not most, prominent scientific researchers in geoengineering in the U.S. worked at Livermore or have close links with people there now or those who used to work there.Then when I read Hugh
