[geo] Jim Prentice scores on pulling carbon capture plug, but big tests lie ahead | Financial Post
Poster's note : more on the eye-watering costs of CCS. Whilst not directly geoengineering, this will be a necessary part of any air capture CDR project (not involving mineralization or similar). A personal view is that these unleveraged approaches are simply impractical whilst energy costs are anything like currently prices. http://business.financialpost.com/2014/10/06/terence-corcoran-jim-prentice-scores-on-pulling-carbon-capture-plug-but-big-tests-lie-ahead/ Jim Prentice scores on pulling carbon capture plug, but big tests lie ahead Terence Corcoran | October 6, 2014 6:16 PM ET Prior to killing future CSS projects in Alberta, Alberta Premier Jim Prentice rightly described them as “science experiments. Okay on carbon and subsidies, but what about the big issue that comes with falling oil prices? Score two big points for Alberta Premier Jim Prentice. Here’s hoping Canadians can hope for more in the future. First point: Mr. Prentice pulled the plug on future carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) projects, a move that allows the province to add to the long, long list of similar projects thrown into the global carbon policy dustbin. According the The Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technologies Program at MIT, the number of cancelled projects around the world — in the United States, the European Union, Norway and elsewhere — now sits at 33. The number still in the uncertain “planning” stages is even longer.Some big CCS projects are going ahead, but would not be without massive government subsidies. Cost overruns are epidemic. A big facility in Kemper County, Mississippi, started out as a $2.4-billion project and now is estimated at $5.5-billion, backed by major U.S. government funding. Prentice will not by dragging Alberta taxpayers into an Ontario-style post-coal renewable subsidy quagmire One project just completed is Saskatchewan’s Boundary Dam, the $1.4-billion and climbing ($1.6-billion?) operation that will send liquid CO2 from a coal plant via a 66-kilometre-long pipeline to Weyburn, Sask., where it will pumped into the ground to allow for the production of more oil. Ottawa gave the project $240-million.Prior to killing future CCS projects in Alberta, Mr. Prentice rightly described them as “science experiments.” Expensive science experiments, however, with billions in federal and provincial cash going to what amount to high-profile mollifiers of climate change agitators. One project still going ahead is the Quest project at Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta, backed by $120-million from Ottawa’s Clean Energy Fund and $745-million from the province. No more of that, said Mr. Prentice. -- 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] Possible cause for “Years Without a Summer” Martin Wegmann
https://www.mysciencework.com/publication/read/8881384/meteorological-measurements-in-the-upper-air-during-milwaukee-cruises-era-clim-id-0042#page-b Possible cause for “Years Without a Summer” Martin Weiland et al.,martin.wegm...@giub.unibe.ch Abstract: Strong tropical volcanic eruptions have significant effects on global and regional temperatures. Their effects on precipitation, however, are less well understood. Analyzing hydroclimatic anomalies after fourteen strong eruptions during the last 400 years in climate reconstructions and model simulations, we find a reduction of the Asian and African summer monsoons and an increase of south-central European summer precipitation in the year following the eruption. 2 simulations provide evidence for a dynamical link between these phenomena. The weaker monsoon circulations weaken the northern branch of the Hadley circulation, alter the atmospheric circulation over the Atlantic-European sector and increase precipitation over Europe. This mechanism is able to explain, for instance, the wet summer in parts of Europe during the “Year Without a Summer” of 1816, which up to now has not been explained. The study underlines the importance of atmospheric teleconnections between the tropics and mid latitudes to better understand the regional climate response to stratospheric volcanic aerosols. -- 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] Streaming event this Friday : The Energy and Climate Nexus
http://energypolicy.columbia.edu/events-calendar/energy-and-climate-nexus The Energy and Climate Nexus Friday, November 7, 2014 9:30 am - 11:00 am Columbia University Morningside Campus Faculty House, Seminar Room Contact: Ke Wei Please join the Center on Global Energy Policy for a forum on The Energy and Climate Nexus. This event will examine the various changes to our energy system that could help keep climate change below a two degree threshold and help meet the goal of a sustainable energy future, including:- Significantly increasing renewable energy deployment;- Accelerating Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS), and negative carbon emissions technologies;- Deploying next generation nuclear technology. Center Fellow Nobuo Tanaka, former Executive Director, International Energy Agency (IEA), will offer brief framing remarks. Center Director Jason Bordoff will then moderate a discussion with: Dr. Klaus Lackner, Director of the Center for Negative Carbon Emissions, and Professor at the School of Sustainable Engineering and the Built Environment, Arizona State University, and former Professor of Geophysics and Director of the Lenfest Center for Sustainable Energy at Columbia University; Ted Norhaus, Chairman, The Breakthrough Institute;Nobuo Tanaka, Ethan Zindler, Head of Policy Analysis, Bloomberg New Energy Finance. Registration is required. This event is open to press. It will also be livestreamed at: energypolicy.columbia.edu/watch (no registration is required to view the livestream) For more information contact: energypol...@columbia.edu -- 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] Does CDR provide “moral hazard” for avoiding deep decarbonization of our economy? | Everything and the Carbon Sink
Hi Folks, This email is related to the geoengineering group discussion thread found here https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/NsN39U6mM34/cVW-d9-kZnEJ. Those who are not current list members have been CC'ed due to your potential interest in the subject(s) found within the thread. As we find many times within that forum, the initial starting point of the discussion often gives rise to a wide spectrum of relevant subjects. After all, the subject of geoengineering, itself, should take into consideration virtually every aspect of life on this planet. *On the subject thread of CDR/Moral Hazard/Soil Carbon/Combined Land and Marine BECCS/Funding and Governance: My views.* *1) The CRD Moral Hazard Red Herring:* The specious argument of a *'moral hazard'* issue, within the specter of CDR based mitigation, is seemingly no more than a useless reductionist distraction (i.e. red herring). In that, the concept of carbon negative biofuels (i.e. BECCS http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch3s3-3-5-1.html) is one concept, among a few, which simply makes the entire issue of a moral hazard moot, as it relates to CDR. The soil based CDR approaches (i.e. biochar, olivine, pasture cropping http://www.carbonranching.org/SOLUTIONS/3_PastureCropping.pdf etc.) also renders the issue of a moral hazard moot due to the many out-year C sequestration benefits as well as the significant reduction in agro FF and chemical uses. Also, it is important to keep in mind that many of these soil based CDR approaches are adaptable to the BECCS regiment, in that they are compatible technologies. *2) BECCS efficaciousness at the practical and ethical levels:* Greg puts forth the premise that BECCS (i.e. carbon negative biofuel) is too expensive. Yet, one has to ask the basic question of; *Relative to what?* The most fundamental premise of BECCS (per IPCC WG 3) is that it must be profitable at all stages and thus offers one of the few mitigation concepts which can actually earn its own keep. In fact, *not employing* BECCS/carbon negative biofuel, in our current situation, is actually a true and significant moral hazard, in of itself, due to the multiple benefits of; 1) replacing FFs while utilizing/sequestering carbon 2) supporting important ancillary biotic processes beyond BECCS 3) providing far greater equitable distribution of the economic and environmental benefits than non-BECCS related options Even PV does not achieve this important blend of technical, policy, profit, ethical advantages. Due to the robust list of benefits offered by BECCS related operations,* not* employing BECCS operations is seemingly as unethical as the un-abated continuation of FF use. *3) Energy First with Carbon Utilization/Sequestration Being the Other First:* Mike's opinion of *I am all for encouraging land uptake of carbon, but if we are not simultaneously pushing for cutting emissions sharply, it really degrades all the effort that needs to be put into land carbon buildup.* is achievable once we adopt the broadest possible holistic view of the potential solutions. One important example of the benefits of taking such a broad view is found through the lens of working simultaneously within the marine and land biocapacity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocapacity arenas. In that, engineered carbon uptake within the marine environment (vis-a-vis vast scale maricuture which can include olivine use) can eventually dwarf land carbon uptake simply due to the vast scale of the marine resources available to work with. Further, a vast scale marine bio-production effort will significantly reduce agro protein production pressures and thus help preserve the land resources and land biodiversity. This synergistic cascade of benefits can be extended through utilizing some of the marine bio-production stream of biomass for use as biochar and organic fertilizer to support increased land vegetable/grain bio-production. Also, the potential vast scale of freshwater production of marine bio-production operations would also be transformative to land based bio-production including large scale engineered desert afforestation http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0961953495000267 operations. The large scale use of land/marine hybrid technologies, such as aquaponics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquaponics use either at sea or on land, can be economic game changers. In brief, viewing the global bio-capacity of the combined marine and land areas, as opposed to the current restricted view of primarily that of land use only, provides us with the fullest spectrum *and* scale of global carbon management tools along with a robust list of food/energy security means and methods. *4) What exactly do we mean by ' Sustainability':* The recent WWF *'Living Planet Report 2014 http://ba04e385e36eeed47f9c-abbcd57a2a90674a4bcb7fab6c6198d0.r88.cf1.rackcdn.com/Living_Planet_Report_2014.pdf* ' *measures one key dimension of sustainability: the extent to
Re: [geo] Does CDR provide “moral hazard” for avoiding deep decarbonization of our economy? | Everything and the Carbon Sink
Just to clarify, my view is that CCS is too expensive whether it's FFCCS or BECCS. There are cheaper ways to capture and store point source CO2, and those are what we should be discussing in the context of C-negative BE, not perpetuating the myth that expensively making concentrated CO2 and putting it in the ground is our only option. Yes, there can be co-benefits of C-negative BE, my favorite being generation of ocean alkalinity, as you've heard before. Greg From: Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com To: Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net; Greg Rau r...@llnl.gov; Robert Tulip rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au; adam.sa...@bio4climate.org; me...@footprintnetwork.org; feedb...@thenextgeneration.org; geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com; Ronal Larson rongretlar...@comcast.net; Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf) r.d.schuil...@uu.nl; Andrew Revkin rev...@gmail.com; nathan currier natcurr...@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, November 4, 2014 7:55 PM Subject: [geo] Does CDR provide “moral hazard” for avoiding deep decarbonization of our economy? | Everything and the Carbon Sink Hi Folks, This email is related to the geoengineering group discussion thread found here. Those who are not current list members have been CC'ed due to your potential interest in the subject(s) found within the thread. As we find many times within that forum, the initial starting point of the discussion often gives rise to a wide spectrum of relevant subjects. After all, the subject of geoengineering, itself, should take into consideration virtually every aspect of life on this planet. On the subject thread of CDR/Moral Hazard/Soil Carbon/Combined Land and Marine BECCS/Funding and Governance: My views. 1) The CRD Moral Hazard Red Herring: The specious argument of a 'moral hazard' issue, within the specter of CDR based mitigation, is seemingly no more than a useless reductionist distraction (i.e. red herring). In that, the concept of carbon negative biofuels (i.e. BECCS) is one concept, among a few, which simply makes the entire issue of a moral hazard moot, as it relates to CDR. The soil based CDR approaches (i.e. biochar, olivine, pasture cropping etc.) also renders the issue of a moral hazard moot due to the many out-year C sequestration benefits as well as the significant reduction in agro FF and chemical uses. Also, it is important to keep in mind that many of these soil based CDR approaches are adaptable to the BECCS regiment, in that they are compatible technologies. 2) BECCS efficaciousness at the practical and ethical levels: Greg puts forth the premise that BECCS (i.e. carbon negative biofuel) is too expensive. Yet, one has to ask the basic question of; Relative to what? The most fundamental premise of BECCS (per IPCC WG 3) is that it must be profitable at all stages and thus offers one of the few mitigation concepts which can actually earn its own keep. In fact, not employing BECCS/carbon negative biofuel, in our current situation, is actually a true and significant moral hazard, in of itself, due to the multiple benefits of; 1) replacing FFs while utilizing/sequestering carbon 2) supporting important ancillary biotic processes beyond BECCS 3) providing far greater equitable distribution of the economic and environmental benefits than non-BECCS related options Even PV does not achieve this important blend of technical, policy, profit, ethical advantages. Due to the robust list of benefits offered by BECCS related operations,not employing BECCS operations is seemingly as unethical as the un-abated continuation of FF use. 3) Energy First with Carbon Utilization/Sequestration Being the Other First: Mike's opinion of I am all for encouraging land uptake of carbon, but if we are not simultaneously pushing for cutting emissions sharply, it really degrades all the effort that needs to be put into land carbon buildup. is achievable once we adopt the broadest possible holistic view of the potential solutions. One important example of the benefits of taking such a broad view is found through the lens of working simultaneously within the marine and land biocapacity arenas. In that, engineered carbon uptake within the marine environment (vis-a-vis vast scale maricuture which can include olivine use) can eventually dwarf land carbon uptake simply due to the vast scale of the marine resources available to work with. Further, a vast scale marine bio-production effort will significantly reduce agro protein production pressures and thus help preserve the land resources and land biodiversity. This synergistic cascade of benefits can be extended through utilizing some of the marine bio-production stream of biomass for use as biochar and organic fertilizer to support increased land vegetable/grain bio-production. Also, the potential vast scale of freshwater production of marine bio-production operations would also be transformative to land
[geo] Speaking of CDR for profit...
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/element-magazine/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503340objectid=11353005 Now based in Chicago, New Zealand-founded company LanzaTech has been heralded for recycling the carbon-rich waste from industrial operations, such as steel works, into ethanol and other green chemicals. The company has raised US$165million from international investors since it was founded in 2005. LanzaTech's latest process, in conjunction with the IOC-DBT Centre for Advanced Bio-Energy Research based in India, is now turning CO2 emissions into omega-3 fatty acids. LanzaTech-developed microbes produce acetate that is then consumed as carbon and energy by specially developed algae rich in omega-3. The algae can then be either directly eaten by fish or the oil extracted and turned into a marketable fish oil supplement. GR- Unclear why this also wouldn't work with good ol' air CO2. Anyway, 0.001 GT/yr of CO2 profitably mitigated (until omega-3 is metabolized back to CO2). 35 GT/yr to go. Speaking of super biota: http://www.nature.com/news/amped-up-plants-1.15932 What if crops could borrow the faster-acting Rubisco system of weeds and cyanobacteria? In theory, this would dramatically boost their growth rate and so their yield, all without needing any extra farmland. The appeal of such a strategy is obvious, particularly in the face of the often-quoted United Nations demand for global food production to double by 2050. In practice, replacing the enzyme has proved difficult. But there is encouraging news: on Nature’s website, researchers report that they have made tobacco plants that use the Rubisco from a cyanobacterium (M. T. Lin et al. Nature http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature13776; 2014http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature13776). Sure enough, the transformed plants photosynthesize faster and have higher rates of CO2 turnover than their conventional counterparts. Faster-growing tobacco plants might not sound like a boon for global welfare, but they do demonstrate what might be possible in future. (Tobacco is a common model organism for genetic-engineering research.) GR - Question, you can amp up the bio CO2 capturing mechanism all you want, but if the goal is to produce biomass at large scales, aren't most plants nutrient- or water-limited, so where are the extra water and nutrients going to come from, aside from fossil fuel intensive irrigation and industrial N fixation? OK, in the marine environment it's just a nutrient issue. Anyway, if CO2 is not the limiting molecule, what is the point of souping up CO2 assimilation? -- 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.
