Re: [geo] Geoengineering in a World Risk Society - By Tina Sikka.
Greg and list: Not sure how Michael will respond, but I urge list members to look at www.coolplanet.com. This is the only group I know of that are already driving cars with this carbon negative slogan - but there are dozens of companies saying something similar about carbon-negative cooking and making charcoal. Cool Planet has plenty of funds. They are moving aggressively with 2 (maybe 3?) small engine-ready drop-in gasoline refineries scheduled for Louisiana relatively soon. Ron On Feb 2, 2014, at 11:55 AM, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov wrote: Maybe i missed something, but what is carbon negative biofuel production? Greg From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Michael Hayes [voglerl...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2014 11:33 AM To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Cc: oscar2000esco...@gmail.com; em...@lewis-brown.net Subject: Re: [geo] Geoengineering in a World Risk Society - By Tina Sikka. Oscar, The premise of the paper is highly biased. To quote: I argue that it is their inherently global, unpredictable, uninsurable and potentially catastrophic character, which can be both inimitable, frightening,... Carbon negative biofuel production is not unpredictable, uninsurable, potentially catastrophic, inimitable nor frightening. The same can also be said about MCB, direct air capture, biochar, olivine in its' many uses, flue capture etc. By characterizing the entire geoengineering tool box as Frankensteinish, the author shows her lack of in depth understanding of the science and engineering. Emily makes a good point in that we are constantly involved in activities which affect our planetary ecology. The truly frightening thing about these undeclared GE activities is that few have environmental or social value. GE has great potential for both. Best, On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:07:32 PM UTC-8, Oscar Escobar wrote: Dear Emily, I am sorry you chose to focus on such narrow area of the paper, in which she perhaps did not elaborate appropriately. But she does so a bit more in the main body, if you read the complete work. Even so I think that , 'outlandish' is one of the more terse terms I have heard used to describe geoengineering in a negative manner. And I mean terse, compared to some other adjectives used by some geoeng. proponents. What I though more important than her assessments of individual techniques, was that, even though she is highly, and rightfully, critical of GE, she highlights the importance of not only the public's participation in the dialogue but the need for continued research. Now the fact that a few 'lay persons' may have a chance to post here, doesn't mean that the public at large is involved in the conversation. Consider that Geoengineering has been talked about (with its present CO2 focus) at least since the 1970s, and yet the science in general is still presented as new. Regarding her assessment that continued research is needed, I would think that is something geoengineering researchers would welcome. Dear Dr. Salter, Thank you for the paper, I have read and written a little on the cooling effects of these type of clouds and the hydrological cycle in general. I am not a professional scientist. I blog and comment from a layperson's point of view. I guess the knowledge I do possess is what the average lay person with some interest may be able to gather these days. I would generally agree with you that we need to know more. But, why not start first by being exhaustive about knowing the effects of aviation emissions and ship tracks, which are two of the closest anthropogenic analogs (albeit imperfect) to SRM? Regarding the roll of clouds, and in my limited capacity, I have written a few entries in my blog such as these: On cirrus: A SAFER ALTERNATIVE TO SOLAR RADIATION MANAGEMENT http://geoengineeringclimateissues.blogspot.com/2013/03/a-safer-alternative-to-solar-radiation.html On type of cloud: Short cutting the cooling properties of the hydrological cycle http://geoengineeringclimateissues.blogspot.com/2013/04/short-cutting-cooling-properties-of.html Water vs Heat - Re. Global warming affects crop yields, but it's the water not the heat http://geoengineeringclimateissues.blogspot.com/2013/03/wow-out-just-today-march-4-2013-eye.html Best Regards, Oscar Escobar A #Geoengineering #Climate Issues Blog - Geoingeniería On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 3:01:47 AM UTC-5, Emily L-B wrote: Hi thanks for this. Perhaps it is a cultural or translation issue, but 'outlandish' is quite an 'outlandish' word for a scientific paper. - I am struck by the application of this term for painting roofs white, OIF and mirrors in space because taking these examples, we do all of these things already: We have, i dont know how
[geo] Nordhaus book
List: The last (at least in my mail) issue of Science had a review (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6169/371.full) of the recent book Climate Casino by Prof. William Nordhaus. In my mind a little more negative a review than deserved. A more positive review was given by Paul Krugman (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/nov/07/climate-change-gambling-civilization/) in November. Since both reviews gave credit for clarity and emphasis on risk, and I wanted to hear more about climate economics, I gambled on a $14.99 Kindle edition. I'm glad I did. There is much more on Geoengineering, including Carbon Removal, than I expected. Nordhaus is not positive on most of geoengineering, but here are a few comments that struck me, and might draw further comment: #1 (near Kindle 2255):.. the option of CO2 removal, which is genuinely attractive, is postponed to later chapters. #2 (near Kindle 2300) , no responsible country should undertake geoengineering as the first line of defense against global warming. #3 (near Kindle 2485) Suppose that British Columbia were to devote half of its forest land, or about 300,000 square kilometers, to carbon removal. This would involve growing trees, cutting them after they mature, and storing them in a way that prevents leakage of the CO2 into the atmosphere. British Columbia would soon have a huge mountain of trees, but devoting half the province to the project would offset less than 0.5 percent of the world's CO2 emissions in coming years. RWL: Several comments on these three sentences. First that the stated 300,000 square kilometers represents well less than 0.3 percent of global land area (of about 13 Gha). Second, depending on assumptions, the annual carbon removal offset at this site could be larger (not less) than 0.5 percent... in coming years. Third, that Professor Nordhaus nowhere in this book has used the word biochar. None of his two uses of nitrous oxide, ten uses of soil, or four dozens uses of the word food capture these non-climate aspects of biochar. So I suspect his support of CDR will be higher when he discovers Biochar as the most recent addition to the carbon removal option list. Other thoughts? Ron -- 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.
Re: [geo] Nordhaus book
One thing that interests me about the CDR debate is the issue of future costs. Energy atm is of the order of 10c/kWh. How would our options change if it was 1c or 0.1c? Are there technologies which could achieve such a costs drop? A 1 order drop from solar or fusion is potentially conceivable. A 2 order drop is unlikely. Would the technology mix change accordingly? I expect that air capture would be more attractive at lower energy costs. Further, we're seeing population falls in developed countries (such as Japan) , and effective falls in countries such as the UK (now sustained by immigration and the children of immigrants) . In the 22nd century, there may be significant global population falls, and this will reduce the marginal cost of marginal land, assuming flat consumption of food, timber, etc . Such a change would make forestry solutions much more attractive, for example. I'd be interested in other viewpoints A On 2 Feb 2014 23:36, Ronal W. Larson rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote: List: The last (at least in my mail) issue of *Science* had a review ( http://www.sciencemag.org/content/343/6169/371.full) of the recent book Climate Casino by Prof. William Nordhaus. In my mind a little more negative a review than deserved. A more positive review was given by Paul Krugman ( http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2013/nov/07/climate-change-gambling-civilization/) in November. Since both reviews gave credit for clarity and emphasis on risk, and I wanted to hear more about climate economics, I gambled on a $14.99 Kindle edition. I'm glad I did. There is much more on Geoengineering, including Carbon Removal, than I expected. Nordhaus is not positive on most of geoengineering, but here are a few comments that struck me, and might draw further comment: #1 (near Kindle 2255):..* the option of CO2 removal, which is genuinely attractive, is postponed to later chapters.* #2 (near Kindle 2300) *, no responsible country should undertake geoengineering as the first line of defense against global warming.* #3 (near Kindle 2485) *Suppose that British Columbia were to devote half of its forest land, or about 300,000 square kilometers, to carbon removal. This would involve growing trees, cutting them after they mature, and storing them in a way that prevents leakage of the CO2 into the atmosphere. British Columbia would soon have a huge mountain of trees, but devoting half the province to the project would offset less than 0.5 percent of the world's CO2 emissions in coming years.* RWL: Several comments on these three sentences. First that the stated 300,000 square kilometers represents well less than 0.3 percent of global land area (of about 13 Gha). Second, depending on assumptions, the annual carbon removal offset at this site could be larger (not less) than 0.5 percent... in coming years. Third, that Professor Nordhaus nowhere in this book has used the word biochar. None of his two uses of nitrous oxide, ten uses of soil, or four dozens uses of the word food capture these non-climate aspects of biochar. So I suspect his support of CDR will be higher when he discovers Biochar as the most recent addition to the carbon removal option list. Other thoughts? Ron -- 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. -- 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.
RE: [geo] Geoengineering in a World Risk Society - By Tina Sikka.
OK, thanks. So the options are: 1) standard biocombustion with CCS, presumably this means the end fuel is electricity. 2) Gasification is the combustion of biomass with super hot water forming syngas, H2 + CO. This can be combusted for electricity (+CO2) generation, can be water shifted to form H2 (+CO2), or can be used (precursor) for hydrocarbon fuel production. Electricity and H2 thus seem the only possibility for C-negative fuels if CCS were applied. 3) Pyrolysis (low O2 combustion) of biomass forms syngas and biochar. Here biochar offers some C sequestration whether the syngas is used for electricity, H2 or hydrocarbon fuel production. In the latter case, what would need to be shown is that this sequestration is larger than the C footprint of the additional energy subsidies needed to synthesize higher hydrocarbons from syngas (not to mention the C penalty in biomass cultivation, harvesting, transporting, and processing). OK so far? A way to make C negative fuel abiotically is to power water electrolysis with non-fossil electricity, while also placing base minerals around the anode. This forces OH- produced at the cathode to go unneutralized until contracted by air CO2, whereupon the CO2 is consumed and converted to (bi)carbonate in solution. Thus, the H2 fuel produced is strongly C negative. Placing the resulting long-lived (bi)carbonate in the ocean isn't a bad thing either (neutralizes/offsets ocean acidification). Details: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/05/30/1222358110.full.pdf http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM30u95uC0cfeature=youtu.be Other candidates within the C negative fuels arena? Actually, the preceding H2 could compliment the above biofuels production because the production of standard hydrocarbon fuels from biomass usually requires an additional source of H2 for fuel upgrading. Better that that H2 be C negative rather than the usual very C-positive H2 from methane reforming ;-) Other ideas? Greg From: Peter Flynn [peter.fl...@ualberta.ca] Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2014 12:40 PM To: Rau, Greg; geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [geo] Geoengineering in a World Risk Society - By Tina Sikka. Greg, Any biofuel production without carbon sequestration is carbon neutral, based on the assumption that the regrowth of plants offset the carbon emitted in fuel usage. Any biofuel production with carbon capture and sequestration is carbon negative. The three examples that come to mind are flue gas capture of CO2 from biomass combustion, CO2 capture from oxygen gasification, and biochar. Peter Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D. Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Alberta peter.fl...@ualberta.camailto:peter.fl...@ualberta.ca cell: 928 451 4455 From: geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Rau, Greg Sent: February-02-14 11:55 AM To: geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [geo] Geoengineering in a World Risk Society - By Tina Sikka. Maybe i missed something, but what is carbon negative biofuel production? Greg From: geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Michael Hayes [voglerl...@gmail.commailto:voglerl...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, February 01, 2014 11:33 AM To: geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com Cc: oscar2000esco...@gmail.commailto:oscar2000esco...@gmail.com; em...@lewis-brown.netmailto:em...@lewis-brown.net Subject: Re: [geo] Geoengineering in a World Risk Society - By Tina Sikka. Oscar, The premise of the paper is highly biased. To quote: I argue that it is their inherently global, unpredictable, uninsurable and potentially catastrophic character, which can be both inimitable, frightening,... Carbon negative biofuel production is not unpredictable, uninsurable, potentially catastrophic, inimitable nor frightening. The same can also be said about MCB, direct air capture, biochar, olivine in its' many uses, flue capture etc. By characterizing the entire geoengineering tool box as Frankensteinish, the author shows her lack of in depth understanding of the science and engineering. Emily makes a good point in that we are constantly involved in activities which affect our planetary ecology. The truly frightening thing about these undeclared GE activities is that few have environmental or social value. GE has great potential for both. Best, On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:07:32 PM UTC-8, Oscar Escobar wrote: Dear Emily, I am sorry you chose to focus on such narrow area of the paper, in which she perhaps did not elaborate appropriately. But she does so a bit more in
