RE: [geo] Re: what's new on cost estimates for DAC CDR?
Vivian Scott also produced a comparison. Maybe he'll send it. Afforestation and olivine are cheap, but only olivine has capacity. DAC is expensive but capable. A On 30 Aug 2014 01:56, markcap...@podenergy.org wrote: Charlie, You mean a table or something like an updated McLaren chart http://http://oceanforesters.org/References.html, http://oceanforesters.org/References.html. The chart is at the bottom of the page. Duncan McLaren has produced this chart for a few years. His 2012 A comparative assessment... (link near top of the same page) was published in the same journal with Negative carbon via Ocean Afforestation. Mark E. Capron, PE Ventura, California www.PODenergy.org Original Message Subject: [geo] Re: what's new on cost estimates for DAC CDR? From: Charlie Zender charlie.zen...@gmail.com Date: Thu, August 28, 2014 1:51 pm To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Fred, It would be a great contribution if you synthsized your review into a table of DAC CDR cost estimates which we could all view. Best, Charlie On Monday, August 25, 2014 10:17:58 PM UTC-7, Fred Zimmerman wrote: Hi -- I am updating a literature review on cost estimates for DAC CDR and I am wondering what has changed both empirically and analytically since the flurry of papers in 2011-2013 with APS, House, Keith, Lackner et al. Fred Zimmerman Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA a fox, not a hedgehog -- Isaiah Berlin -- 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/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 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/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 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/d/optout.
Re: [geo] Re: what's new on cost estimates for DAC CDR?
There are summaries of cost estimates in several of the articles referenced in this thread. There are values reported at pretty much every stop between $45 and $1000/ton. I am not sure that I find any of the estimates convincing as yet. I wonder if the size of global demand (whether industrial or governmental) is a bigger problem than cost. On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 8:56 PM, markcap...@podenergy.org wrote: Charlie, You mean a table or something like an updated McLaren chart http://http://oceanforesters.org/References.html, http://oceanforesters.org/References.html. The chart is at the bottom of the page. Duncan McLaren has produced this chart for a few years. His 2012 A comparative assessment... (link near top of the same page) was published in the same journal with Negative carbon via Ocean Afforestation. Mark E. Capron, PE Ventura, California www.PODenergy.org Original Message Subject: [geo] Re: what's new on cost estimates for DAC CDR? From: Charlie Zender charlie.zen...@gmail.com Date: Thu, August 28, 2014 1:51 pm To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Fred, It would be a great contribution if you synthsized your review into a table of DAC CDR cost estimates which we could all view. Best, Charlie On Monday, August 25, 2014 10:17:58 PM UTC-7, Fred Zimmerman wrote: Hi -- I am updating a literature review on cost estimates for DAC CDR and I am wondering what has changed both empirically and analytically since the flurry of papers in 2011-2013 with APS, House, Keith, Lackner et al. Fred Zimmerman Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA a fox, not a hedgehog -- Isaiah Berlin -- 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/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 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/d/optout.
[geo] Re: Further evidence (as if needed)
The IPCC is apparently also toughening its stance: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/science/earth/greenhouse-gas-emissions-are-growing-and-growing-more-dangerous-draft-of-un-report-says.html http://bigstory.ap.org/article/un-panel-global-warming-human-caused-dangerous The AP notes that The [draft of the IPCC] report used the word risk 351 times in just 127 pages. Guess this whole climate change thing is pretty serious. Wonder how many times CDR and SRM appear in the report? Greg From: Greg Rau gh...@sbcglobal.net To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2014 10:13 AM Subject: Further evidence (as if needed) I'd say the science community has done its job. Will the decisionmakers now do theirs? See attached. Greg ps from the release Even if greenhouse gas emissions were to suddenly stop, it would take thousands of years for atmospheric CO2 to return to its levels before the industrial era. True, if one ignores the possibility of CDR, the subject of a forthcoming NAS report (and earlier Royal Society study) that was apparently ignored by this one. http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=18730 U.S. National Academy of Sciences, U.K. Royal Society Release Joint Publication on Climate Change WASHINGTON -- The U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society, the national science academy of the U.K., released a joint publication today in Washington, D.C., that explains the clear evidence that humans are causing the climate to change, and that addresses a variety of other key questions commonly asked about climate change science. “As two of the world’s leading scientific bodies, we feel a responsibility to evaluate and explain what is known about climate change, at least the physical side of it, to concerned citizens, educators, decision makers and leaders, and to advance public dialogue about how to respond to the threats of climate change,” said NAS President Ralph J. Cicerone. “Our aim with this new resource is to provide people with easy access to the latest scientific evidence on climate change, including where scientists agree and where uncertainty still remains,” added Sir Paul Nurse, president of the Royal Society. We have enough evidence to warrant action being taken on climate change; it is now time for the public debate to move forward to discuss what we can do to limit the impact on our lives and those of future generations. Climate Change: Evidence and Causes, written and reviewed by leading experts in both countries, lays out which aspects of climate change are well-understood, and where there is still uncertainty and a need for more research. Carbon dioxide (CO2) has risen to levels not seen for at least 800,000 years, and observational records dating back to the mid-19th century show a clear, long-term warming trend. The publication explains that measurements that distinguish between the different forms of carbon in the atmosphere provide clear evidence that the increased amount of CO2 comes primarily from the combustion of fossil fuels, and discusses why the warming that has occurred along with the increase in CO2 cannot be explained by natural causes such as variations in the sun’s output. The publication delves into other commonly asked questions about climate change, for example, what the slower rate of warming since the very warm year in 1998 means, and whether and how climate change affects the strength and frequency of extreme weather events. Many effects of climate change have already become apparent in the observational record, but the possible extent of future impacts needs to be better understood. For example, while average global sea levels have risen about 8 inches (20 cm) since 1901, and are expected to continue to rise, more research is needed to more accurately predict the size of future sea-level rise. In addition, the chemical balance of the oceans has shifted toward a more acidic state, which makes it difficult for organisms such as corals and shellfish to form and maintain their shells. As the oceans continue to absorb CO2, their acidity will continue to increase over the next century, along with as yet undetermined impacts on marine ecosystems and the food web. Even if greenhouse gas emissions were to suddenly stop, it would take thousands of years for atmospheric CO2 to return to its levels before the industrial era. If emissions continue unabated, future climate changes will substantially exceed those that have occurred so far, the publication says. The authoring committee offers this brief explanation of the science of climate change to help inform policy debates about the choices available to nations and the global community for reducing the magnitude of climate change and adapting to its impacts. The publication is available to download for free at www.nap.edu and as an
RE: [geo] Re: what's new on cost estimates for DAC CDR?
What qualifies as DAC CDR? Greg From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Fred Zimmerman [geoengineerin...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 29, 2014 7:02 PM To: Mark Capron Cc: charlie.zen...@gmail.com; geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] Re: what's new on cost estimates for DAC CDR? There are summaries of cost estimates in several of the articles referenced in this thread. There are values reported at pretty much every stop between $45 and $1000/ton. I am not sure that I find any of the estimates convincing as yet. I wonder if the size of global demand (whether industrial or governmental) is a bigger problem than cost. On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 8:56 PM, markcap...@podenergy.orgmailto:markcap...@podenergy.org wrote: Charlie, You mean a table or something like an updated McLaren charthttp://http://oceanforesters.org/References.html, http://oceanforesters.org/References.html. The chart is at the bottom of the page. Duncan McLaren has produced this chart for a few years. His 2012 A comparative assessment... (link near top of the same page) was published in the same journal with Negative carbon via Ocean Afforestation. Mark E. Capron, PE Ventura, California www.PODenergy.orghttp://www.PODenergy.org Original Message Subject: [geo] Re: what's new on cost estimates for DAC CDR? From: Charlie Zender charlie.zen...@gmail.commailto:charlie.zen...@gmail.com Date: Thu, August 28, 2014 1:51 pm To: geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com Fred, It would be a great contribution if you synthsized your review into a table of DAC CDR cost estimates which we could all view. Best, Charlie On Monday, August 25, 2014 10:17:58 PM UTC-7, Fred Zimmerman wrote: Hi -- I am updating a literature review on cost estimates for DAC CDR and I am wondering what has changed both empirically and analytically since the flurry of papers in 2011-2013 with APS, House, Keith, Lackner et al. Fred Zimmerman Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA a fox, not a hedgehog -- Isaiah Berlin -- 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.commailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 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/d/optout.
Re: [geo] Thermostats and dials
Perhaps this? http://baptistbulletin.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2009/12/inline_globalwarming.jpg -- 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/d/optout.
RE: [geo] Re: what's new on cost estimates for DAC CDR?
Mechanical / chemical engineering processes, eg as per Keith, Lackner, etc. A On 30 Aug 2014 18:37, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov wrote: What qualifies as DAC CDR? Greg -- *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Fred Zimmerman [geoengineerin...@gmail.com] *Sent:* Friday, August 29, 2014 7:02 PM *To:* Mark Capron *Cc:* charlie.zen...@gmail.com; geoengineering *Subject:* Re: [geo] Re: what's new on cost estimates for DAC CDR? There are summaries of cost estimates in several of the articles referenced in this thread. There are values reported at pretty much every stop between $45 and $1000/ton. I am not sure that I find any of the estimates convincing as yet. I wonder if the size of global demand (whether industrial or governmental) is a bigger problem than cost. On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 8:56 PM, markcap...@podenergy.org wrote: Charlie, You mean a table or something like an updated McLaren chart http://http://oceanforesters.org/References.html, http://oceanforesters.org/References.html. The chart is at the bottom of the page. Duncan McLaren has produced this chart for a few years. His 2012 A comparative assessment... (link near top of the same page) was published in the same journal with Negative carbon via Ocean Afforestation. Mark E. Capron, PE Ventura, California www.PODenergy.org Original Message Subject: [geo] Re: what's new on cost estimates for DAC CDR? From: Charlie Zender charlie.zen...@gmail.com Date: Thu, August 28, 2014 1:51 pm To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Fred, It would be a great contribution if you synthsized your review into a table of DAC CDR cost estimates which we could all view. Best, Charlie On Monday, August 25, 2014 10:17:58 PM UTC-7, Fred Zimmerman wrote: Hi -- I am updating a literature review on cost estimates for DAC CDR and I am wondering what has changed both empirically and analytically since the flurry of papers in 2011-2013 with APS, House, Keith, Lackner et al. Fred Zimmerman Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA a fox, not a hedgehog -- Isaiah Berlin -- 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/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 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/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 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/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 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/d/optout.
RE: [geo] Re: what's new on cost estimates for DAC CDR?
Ocean Forests lack CO2 capture and store capacity? See "Secure Seafloor Container CO2 Storage" co-authored with Royal Fellow Dr. R. Kerry Rowe at:http://oceanforesters.org/uploads/Secure_Seafloor_Container_CO2_Storage_copy__Oceans_13.pdf. No real capacity limit on the storage of contained CO2 hydrate. 2.1 trillion tons of CO2 stored as hydrate (about 4x the volume of liquid CO2) would raise global sea level only 24 millimeters. In-ocean trials are needed to confirm a design which is easily repaired without significant loss, should the container be assaulted by sea creatures or seafloor disturbance. Relative to Olivine, the filling containers with liquid CO2 and seawater (minutes). Without mixing, hydrate formation may take a few years. However, the geosynthetic hydrate containers may require repairs every few 1,000 years. The ideal solution might be to quickly store CO2 any of numerous relatively quick ways with less than 1% loss per 1,000 years and then react it with Olivine in the long-term.The rate of capture is limited, but only because the inexpensively captured bio-CO2 volume is tied to the demand for the co-produced energy. That is why our strategy is to produce energy as inexpensively as possible. If our capture is so inexpensive we have leftover carbon price money, we subsidize the the energy costs until fossil fuels are left in the ground as too expensive. At which point there is no carbon price income from fossil fuel users. So we raise energy prices to subsidize removing legacy CO2 from air. We would keep swinging our energy prices to prevent the fossil fuel industry from restarting.We are planning a new paper with hydrothermal processes for the "biomass-to-energy while recovering the nutrients" component. Hydrothermal appears to be more capital intensive but it extracts nearly all the energy (carbon) while returning nearly all the nutrients. About half the energy is in a bio-crude oil, the other half is a 60:40 CH4:CO2 biogas. Therefore nearly twice the energy yield with about the same bio-CO2 yield as for anaerobic digestion.MarkMark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org Original Message Subject: RE: [geo] Re: what's new on cost estimates for DAC CDR? From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com Date: Sat, August 30, 2014 2:13 am To: "markcap...@podenergy.org" markcap...@podenergy.org, vivian.sc...@ed.ac.uk Cc: Fred Zimmerman geoengineerin...@gmail.com, charlie.zen...@gmail.com, geoengineering@googlegroups.com Vivian Scott also produced a comparison. Maybe he'll send it. Afforestation and olivine are cheap, but only olivine has capacity. DAC is expensive but capable. A On 30 Aug 2014 01:56, markcap...@podenergy.org wrote: Charlie,You mean a table or something like an updated McLaren chart,http://oceanforesters.org/References.html. The chart is at the bottom of the page. Duncan McLaren has produced this chart for a few years. His "2012 A comparative assessment..." (link near top of the same page) was published in the same journal with "Negative carbon via Ocean Afforestation." Mark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org Original Message Subject: [geo] Re: what's new on cost estimates for DAC CDR? From: Charlie Zender charlie.zen...@gmail.com Date: Thu, August 28, 2014 1:51 pm To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Fred,It would be a great contribution if you synthsized your review into a table of DAC CDR cost estimates which we could all view.Best,Charlie On Monday, August 25, 2014 10:17:58 PM UTC-7, Fred Zimmerman wrote:Hi --I am updating a literature review on cost estimates for DAC CDR and I am wondering what has changed both empirically and analytically since the flurry of papers in 2011-2013 with APS, House, Keith, Lackner et al. Fred ZimmermanAnn Arbor, Michigan, USA"a fox, not a hedgehog" -- Isaiah Berlin-- 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/d/optout.-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 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/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to
Fwd: [geo] Re: what's new on cost estimates for DAC CDR?
I'm posting the below, as the sender cc'd the GE group, but wasn't a member - so it didn't fire. A -- Forwarded message -- From: Stuart Haszeldine s.haszeld...@ed.ac.uk Date: 30 August 2014 23:29 Subject: Re: [geo] Re: what's new on cost estimates for DAC CDR? To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com Cc: Stuart Haszeldine s.haszeld...@ed.ac.uk, markcap...@podenergy.org markcap...@podenergy.org, vivian.sc...@ed.ac.uk, Fred Zimmerman geoengineerin...@gmail.com, charlie.zen...@gmail.com, geoengineering@googlegroups.com Andrew, Here is one version of the very basic cost comparisons for CDR Vivian Scott and I have made. Storing Carbon for Geologically Long Timescales to Engineer Climate 08 May 2014 Issues in Environmental Science and Technology, 38 http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/chapter/bk9781849739535-00022/978-1-84973-953-5#!divabstract A slightly more advanced article is in preparation, also considering reliability and maintenance of the storage part, i.e. after the capture Best Stuart School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh, On 30 Aug 2014, at 10:13, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: Vivian Scott also produced a comparison. Maybe he'll send it. Afforestation and olivine are cheap, but only olivine has capacity. DAC is expensive but capable. A On 30 Aug 2014 01:56, markcap...@podenergy.org wrote: Charlie, You mean a table or something like an updated McLaren chart, http://oceanforesters.org/References.html. The chart is at the bottom of the page. Duncan McLaren has produced this chart for a few years. His 2012 A comparative assessment... (link near top of the same page) was published in the same journal with Negative carbon via Ocean Afforestation. Mark E. Capron, PE Ventura, California www.PODenergy.org -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. Original Message Subject: [geo] Re: what's new on cost estimates for DAC CDR? From: Charlie Zender charlie.zen...@gmail.com Date: Thu, August 28, 2014 1:51 pm To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Fred, It would be a great contribution if you synthsized your review into a table of DAC CDR cost estimates which we could all view. Best, Charlie On Monday, August 25, 2014 10:17:58 PM UTC-7, Fred Zimmerman wrote: Hi -- I am updating a literature review on cost estimates for DAC CDR and I am wondering what has changed both empirically and analytically since the flurry of papers in 2011-2013 with APS, House, Keith, Lackner et al. Fred Zimmerman Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA a fox, not a hedgehog -- Isaiah Berlin -- 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/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 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/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 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/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 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/d/optout.
