[geo] Two long live streaming events on the 7th

[Ronal W . Larson]

List:

1.A very good live streaming event was broadcast today from Paris.   See 
more than 9 hours at  http://www.earthtoparis.org/ 


This list’s Oliver Morton was the last 15- minute questioner of three 
developing country journalists at 8:49.

A good example of the quality interviews was that of Drs. Sylvia Earle 
and Jane Goodall, questioned by Jeff Horowitz - starts at 1:10.  Good 
rationales from the oceans and forest perspectives.

I hope someone can give us a full time schedule.  Secretary of State 
Kerry gave a hint on the US positions, for instance that is worth listening to. 
  I have only listened to about a third.


2.  I wondered if the anti-COP21 group was doing anything similar.  Andrew 
Watts site led me to this site (going on virtually simultaneously):

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/07/watch-live-stream-from-paris-cop21-skeptic-conference-here-including-new-film-climate-hustle/
 


Willie Soon was probably their best spokesperson - at 2:01:45.  My 
first time to ever hear him;  I was unconvinced by his rather nasty defense 
starting at 2:01:45.  He only mentioned/showed the word CO2 in one slide - his 
talk was all about solar variations.  Closed at 2:19.  I think this list would 
benefit from an expert’s analysis of this talk (Soon only used AR4 , never AR5)

I still have half to go.  So far, this has been a very weak rebuttal.  
Not at all clear why they have any audience.

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/d/optout.

Re: [geo] The latest bad news on carbon capture from coal power plants: higher costs

[Ronal W . Larson]

List and Andrew:  (courtesy ccs to authors)

1.  Today’s link seems to be a major new (negative) result for BECCS.  
I hope we can hear from BECCS supporters on why this new analysis is incorrect. 
 I’d rather not follow this thread, since this is not my main CDR interest

2.   I write mostly to be sure that persons investigating CDR options 
do not think that Andrew’s statement that  
“It’s likely similar errors have crept into the economic arguments for 
BECCS”  
applies to the other main biomass CDR approach:  biochar.  There is zero 
parallel;  biochar does not suffer in any way from this new result.

3.  The nice (and no-cost) description by Drs.  Supekar and Skirlos at 
the “the Conversation” site
 
https://theconversation.com/the-latest-bad-news-on-carbon-capture-from-coal-power-plants-higher-costs-51440
 

 concludes that analysts have incorrectly calculated the cost penalty for 
adding CCS.  I have not yet gotten (but would appreciate) the (for-fee) main 
paper at:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.5b03052 


4.   I was pleasantly surprised that Dr.  Superkar’s full 2015 thesis 
on this topic is available (for free) at:
http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/111423/supekar_1.pdf?sequence=1=y
 

There is much useful information here - both economic and policy - on 
CCS (none on BECCS).  But my quick search did not disclose much on the 
rationale for this new large projected increase in CCS costs.

5.  In the original version at, we read 
>> We traced the confusion to how a 1990s pilot study 
>>  was 
>> interpreted within the CCS energy and economic literature.

which leads one to the (still for fee) 1990 paper by Booras and Speiser:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0360544291900035 


6.   Can anyone else confirm this Supekar/Skirlos conclusion?   Seems 
like quite a few $ billions have been wasted on a pretty basic error.


Ron




> On Dec 7, 2015, at 4:38 PM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
> 
> Poster's note : It's likely similar errors have crept into the economic 
> arguments for BECCS
> 
> https://theconversation.com/the-latest-bad-news-on-carbon-capture-from-coal-power-plants-higher-costs-51440
>  
> 
> The latest bad news on carbon capture from coal power plants: higher costs
> 
> December 3, 2015 11.06am GMT
> 
>  Sarang Supekar and Steve Skerlos
> 


> The numbers don’t add up
> 
>
> 

> We traced the confusion to how a 1990s pilot study was interpreted within the 
> CCS energy and economic literature. That pilot study reported that the power 
> output of their 513 megawatt power plant dropped to 336 megawatts because of 
> the carbon capture equipment added on. That corresponds to a 35% energy 
> penalty, meaning it takes 35% more energy to produce to the same megawatt of 
> power when carbon is removed from the fuel.
> 
> Discrepancies with the actual energy penalty arose when subsequent studies 
> used this 35% energy penalty number without fully incorporating its 
> underlying assumptions – that is, as plants capture more carbon, they need to 
> burn more fuel to capture more carbon.
> 
> This added energy translates directly into costs. When the constant fuel 
> input is considered, the required steam for carbon capture can be about 
> 40%-60% of the total steam produced in the power plant’s boiler. Since this 
> steam cannot be used to generate power, it means lost revenue and a profit 
> penalty for the power plant operator.
> 
> Renewables look better
> 
> 


-- 
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] The ‘Lomborg gambit’ and why the allure of solar geoengineering must be resisted by the Paris negotiators

[Andy Parker]

Hi Stephen, the blog post sought to challenge anyone trying to dangle SRM 
as an *alternative *to emissions cuts, like Lomborg did in 2009. This 
doesn't apply to anyone I know in the expert research community, where 
people tend to see SRM as potential complement to mitigation and adaptation 
and CDR, not as a replacement. So I don’t think there’s anything for us to 
fall out over here. The post takes no issue with researchers trying to 
understand SRM as a possible way to reduce climate risk from the greenhouse 
gases that are emitted before humanity fully decarbonises. 

We hoped that the piece would be of interest to this expert community 
because the stunt that Lomborg pulled in 2009 has been all but forgotten in 
the last six years. The fact that he ran a campaign in Copenhagen to tell 
delegates that cutting emissions wouldn't work, directing them to his cost 
benefit analysis that listed SRM as the top alternative, is something that 
should be remembered. We therefore introduced the term ‘Lomborg Gambit’ to 
describe a deliberate attempt to offer solar geoengineering as an 
alternative to emissions cuts, and we wrote the post in case similar 
attempts are made in Paris.
Andy


On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 7:12:09 PM UTC+1, Stephen Salter wrote:
>
> Hi All
>
> I began work on renewable energy in 1973 and added geoengineering to my 
> workload mainly because it was becoming clear, to me at least, that we 
> would be too late.  That is why the use of the words 'siren calls' and 
> 'alternative' really hurts.  None of the engineers working on hardware 
> wants it to be used but they fear that it will have to be.
>
> Shepherd and Parker must tell us their figure for the probability that 
> emission cuts can be achieved in time and how they did the calculation.  If 
> geoengineering equipment is ready too late they must ask themselves if they 
> carry some blame for the delay.
>
> Stephen
>
> Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, 
> University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JL, Scotland 
> s.sa...@ed.ac.uk , Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704, Cell 07795 203 
> 195, WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change
>
>
> On 06/12/2015 12:46, Andrew Lockley wrote:
>
>
> http://dcgeoconsortium.org/2015/12/03/the-lomborg-gambit-and-why-the-allure-of-solar-geoengineering-must-be-resisted-by-the-paris-negotiators-prof-john-shepherd-cbe-frs-and-andy-parker/
>
> The ‘Lomborg gambit’ and why the allure of solar geoengineering must be 
> resisted by the Paris negotiators – Prof John Shepherd CBE FRS and Andy 
> Parker
>
> First time here?  Read our "what is climate engineering" page.  
>
> Bjørn Lomborg claimed in 2009 that cutting greenhouse gas emissions would 
> not succeed in halting climate change – and put up posters and 
> a building-sized billboard to promote this message during the UN climate 
> talks in Copenhagen. This defeatist attitude, driven by pessimistic 
> assumptions about political possibilities and simplistic cost/benefit 
> calculations, is hardly unique. But the self-styled “Skeptical 
> Environmentalist” went well beyond mere pessimism, claiming that “there are 
> better ways to fix the climate”. So what was Mr Lomborg’s preferred 
> alternative to the UN talks? It was solar geoengineering, a 
> controversial—and speculative—set of proposals for lowering global 
> temperature by blocking incoming sunlight on a planetary scale.
>
> Lomborg’s adverts around Copenhagen were all but forgotten in 
> the depressing aftermath of the negotiations, which accomplished little 
> other than an international commitment to keep negotiating. But his gambit 
> should be remembered as a landmark moment. It represented the first 
> prominent attempt from an opponent of carbon cuts to dangle geoengineering 
> as an alternative to UN climate negotiations. We don’t know if anyone has 
> any similar stunts planned for Paris, but if they do they should be ignored.
>
> Solar geoengineering has become more widely discussed over the 
> last decade, as climate scientists have grown increasingly worried about 
> the prospects of preventing dangerous warming of our planet. The most 
> prominent idea would involve spraying tiny reflective particles into the 
> upper atmosphere, where they would reflect away a small amount of sunlight. 
> This would replicate the cooling effect of large volcanic eruptions, 
> which occasionally belch sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere. Lomborg’s 
> preferred scheme was marine cloud brightening, but both work by scattering 
> some incoming sunlight and reducing global temperatures – but only while 
> they are maintained.
>
> If you can’t refute the science of climate change, but can’t bear 
> the thought of changing how we generate and use our energy, the appeal of 
> solar geoengineering is obvious. Preliminary research has indicated that it 
> could cool the planet significantly in only a few years, if it could be 
> made to work, and 

[geo] A secret weapon to fight climate change: dirt - The Washington Post

[Andrew Lockley]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2015/12/04/fe22879e-990b-11e5-8917-653b65c809eb_story.html?utm_content=buffer982da_medium=social_source=twitter.com_campaign=buffer

A secret weapon to fight climate change: dirt

By Debbie Barker and Michael Pollan December 4

is the international programs director at the Center for Food
Safety. Michael Pollan is the John S. and James L. Knight professor of
journalism at the University of California at Berkeley.

When Will Allen is asked to name the most beautiful part of his Vermont
farm, he doesn’t talk about the verdant, rolling hills or easy access to
the Connecticut River. Though the space is a picturesque postcard of the
agrarian idyll, Allen points down, to the dirt. “This precious resource not
only grows food,” he says, “but is one of the best methods we have for
sequestering carbon.”

We think of climate change as a consequence of burning fossil fuels. But a
third of the carbon in the atmosphere today used to be in the soil, and
modern farming is largely to blame. Practices such as the overuse of
chemicals, excessive tilling and the use of heavy machinery disturb the
soil’s organic matter, exposing carbon molecules to the air, where they
combine with oxygen to create carbon dioxide. Put another way: Human
activity has turned the living and fertile carbon system in our dirt into a
toxic atmospheric gas.

It’s possible to halt and even reverse this process through better
agricultural policies and practices. Unfortunately, the world leaders
who gathered in Paris this past week have paid little attention to the
critical links between climate change and agriculture. That’s a huge
mistake and a missed opportunity. Our unsustainable farming methods are a
central contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. Climate change, quite
simply, cannot be halted without fixing agriculture.

The industrialization of farming has allowed farmers to grow more crops
more quickly. But modern techniques have also wreaked havoc on the earth,
water and atmosphere. Intense plowing, for example, has introduced more
oxygen into the soil, boosting the microbes that convert organic matter
into carbon dioxide. The quest to wring every last dollar out of fields has
put pressure on farmers to rely on chemical fertilizers. This often leaves
fields more bare between growing seasons, allowing carbon to escape into
the air. Scientists estimate that cultivated soil has lost 50 to 70
percentof its carbon, speeding up climate change.

That loss has significantly degraded soil health, reducing our ability to
grow food. Median crop yields are likely to decline by about 2 percent per
decade through 2100, according to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. At the same time, the world’s population is projected to
jump from 7 billion to 9 billion by 2050.

Water availability is also at risk. Currently,1.6 billion people live in
regions facing severe water scarcity; that number is expected to rise to
2.8 billion by 2025. Agriculture accounts for a whopping 70 percent of all
water consumption. That’s in large part because degraded soil doesn’t
absorb water efficiently. Instead, water sits on top of the ground and runs
off (along with farm chemicals) into nearby waterways, creating toxic
nitrogen “dead zones.”

Remarkably, though, restoring carbon to the soil is not nearly as
complicated as rethinking our transportation systems or replacing coal with
renewable energy. Innovative farmers such as Allen already know the recipe.

He and his team place “cover crops” in their fields, planting things like
oats, rye and beans between rows of vegetables. This practice keeps carbon,
nitrogen and other organic nutrients in the soil. “Keeping as much ground
covered with plants as long as possible allows photosynthesis to draw down
atmospheric carbon into soils,” Allen says. A bare field, in contrast,
represents a waste of photosynthetic potential. Allen also composts, limits
plowing and avoids synthetic chemicals like nitrogen fertilizers. In
combination, these efforts have increased soil organic matter by 3 to 4
percent in just three years. Allen also sells some of his cover crops,
adding farm income.

Allen’s results are not unusual. Studies haveshown that cover cropping,
crop rotation and no-till farming could restore global soil health while
significantly decreasing farms’ carbon footprint. Some scientists project
that 75 to 100 parts per million of CO2 could be drawn out of the
atmosphere over the next century if existing farms, pastures and forestry
systems were managed to maximize carbon sequestration. That’s significant
when you consider that CO2 levels passed 400 ppm this spring. Scientists
agree that the safe level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 350 ppm.

Regenerative farming would also increase the fertility of the land, making
it more productive and better able to absorb and hold water, a critical
function especially in times of climate-related floods and droughts.
Carbon-rich fields 

[geo] Climate effect of an integrated wheat production and bioenergy system with Low Temperature Circulating Fluidized Bed gasifier

[Andrew Lockley]

http://www.researchgate.net/publication/283436690_Climate_effect_of_an_integrated_wheat_production_and_bioenergy_system_with_Low_Temperature_Circulating_Fluidized_Bed_gasifier

Climate effect of an integrated wheat production and bioenergy system with
Low Temperature Circulating Fluidized Bed gasifier

H.Æ. Sigurjonsson
Brian Elmegaard
Lasse Røngaard Clausen
Jesper Ahrenfeldt
Technical University of Denmark
Applied Energy 12/2015; 160:511-520. DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2015.08.114

ABSTRACT

When removing biomass residues from the agriculture for bioenergy
utilization, the nutrients and carbon stored within these "residual
resources" are removed as-well. To mitigate these issues the energy
industry must try to conserve and not destroy the nutrients. The paper
analyses a novel integration between the agricultural system and the energy
system through the Low Temperature Circulating Fluidized Bed (LT-CFB)
gasifier from the perspective of wheat grain production and electricity
generation using wheat straw, where the effects of removing the straw from
the agricultural system are assessed along with the effects of recycling
the nutrients and carbon back to the agricultural system. The methods used
to assess the integration was Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) with IPCC's 2013
100 year global warming potential (GWP) as impact assessment method. The
boundary was set from cradle to gate with two different functional units,
kg grain and kW h electricity produced in Zealand, Denmark. Two cases were
used in the analysis: 1. nutrient balances are regulated by mineral
fertilization and 2. the nutrient balances are regulated by yield. The
analysis compare three scenarios of gasifier operation based on carbon
conversion to two references, no straw removal and straw combustion. The
results show that the climate effect of removing the straws are mitigated
by the carbon soil sequestration with biochar, and electricity and district
heat substitution. Maximum biochar production outperforms maximum heat and
power generation for most substituted electricity and district heating
scenarios. Irrespective of the substituted technologies, the carbon
conversion needs to be 80-86% to fully mitigate the effects of removing the
straws from the agricultural system. This concludes that compromising on
energy efficiency for biochar production can be beneficial in terms of
climate change effect of an integrated wheat production and bioenergy
system.

Climate effect of an integrated wheat production and bioenergy system with
Low Temperature Circulating Fluidized Bed gasifier. Available from:
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/283436690_Climate_effect_of_an_integrated_wheat_production_and_bioenergy_system_with_Low_Temperature_Circulating_Fluidized_Bed_gasifier
[accessed Dec 7, 2015].

-- 
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] The latest bad news on carbon capture from coal power plants: higher costs

[Andrew Lockley]

Poster's note : It's likely similar errors have crept into the economic
arguments for BECCS

https://theconversation.com/the-latest-bad-news-on-carbon-capture-from-coal-power-plants-higher-costs-51440

The latest bad news on carbon capture from coal power plants: higher costs

December 3, 2015 11.06am GMT

 Sarang Supekar and Steve Skerlos

Coal powered much of the industrial revolution and continues to fuel
economic growth in developing nations, including China and India.

The dark side of coal, however, is that it generates large quantities of
the heat-trapping greenhouse gases, mostly carbon dioxide (CO2), that lead
to climate change. This CO2 pollution is in addition to other emissions
from coal burning that lead tothousands of premature deaths per day around
the world.

It was once thought that the CO2 emissions from coal power stations could
be controlled by burying CO2 underground economically. However, our recent
analysis published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology shows
that the concept of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) will be
significantly more expensive than previously thought because previous
studies miscalculated the energy required. As such, it’s unlikely to
provide an economically viable solution to CO2 pollution from coal-based
power generators.

Coal and global carbon budget

As countries think about possible ways to cut their greenhouse gas
emissions at the UN Climate Summit in Paris, developing a strategy to curb
emissions from coal will be essential to taking meaningful action on
climate change.

Globally, the use of coal for heat and electricity accounted for over 14
billion metric tonnes (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2014 according to
the International Energy Agency. This comprises about one-third of the
world’s total greenhouse gas emissions.

Coal being unloaded from a cargo train in India. China and India
collectively have more than 175 gigatons of coal reserves.nicksarebi/flickr

Atmospheric concentration of CO2 today is about 400 parts per million
(ppm). Our analysis shows that if today’s coal power plants continue
operating through the end of their expected service life, they would
collectively emit 260 gigatons to 350 gigatons of CO2 by 2050, which would
increase CO2 concentration by another 13-18 ppm.

Scientists have recommended that CO2 concentration needs to stay
within 430-480 ppm to avoid dangerous interference with the climate
(defined as two degrees Celsius rise in temperature relative to
preindustrial revolution). Coal use in existing power plants alone will
thus consume about a third to a half of the remaining “carbon budget” that
humanity has to avoid reaching that threshold.

CCS to the rescue?

Acknowledging the importance of coal in world economic growth alongside the
need to reduce CO2 emissions has led to great interest in “Carbon Capture &
Sequestration” (CCS) technology.

Prominent studies such as Pacala and Socolow, Williams et al, and Hertwich
et alsuggest a suite of strategies to meet the CO2 challenge. Notably, all
these studies assume the widespread deployment of CCS. For example,
Hertwich et al project that CCS would contribute to nearly 85% of global
CO2 emission reduction by 2050.

CCS essentially involves keeping CO2 out of the atmosphere by capturing the
CO2 produced from fossil fuels, compressing it under high pressure, and
then transporting it via pipelines or ships for storage in the deep ocean
or underground geological reservoirs.

How post-combustion carbon capture and storage technology works.

There are no large-scale CCS power plants (defined as more than 500
megawatts of power) currently in operation, and most of our understanding
of the technology comes from pilot-scale plants in the 1990s and subsequent
scientific models of the capture process.

Capturing the CO2 from the exhaust of coal power plants requires energy in
the form of steam and electricity. Because some energy is used for CO2
capture, CCS reduces a power plant’s electric power output and/or increases
its fuel input. This creates an “energy penalty” for power plants that
increases their operating costs. In addition, there is the large capital
costs of building the CCS system.

Previous studies typically estimated that the fuel cost of coal power
plants capturing 90% of their CO2 emissions would increase by about
30%-60%. However, data emerging from recent pilot or small-scale commercial
CCS plants have consistently indicated that in reality the energy penalty
and fuel costs are much higher. So why the discrepancy?

The numbers don’t add up

To understand why the estimates from earlier pilot studies and models don’t
align with more recent observations about the energy penalty and costs of
CCS, we decided to revisit some of the assumptions and calculations in the
CCS energy analysis and economics literature.

Our research, which was funded by the US National Science Foundation,
showed that the fuel costs of coal-fired power plants can increase by up to

RE: [geo] The latest bad news on carbon capture from coal power plants: higher costs

[markcapron]

If coal plants cannot capture their own CO2 anywhere near economically, then they should be made to pay someone else to capture CO2.  Ocean Forests volunteer.  Our new ecosystem with a hydrothermal process replacing anaerobic digestion produces converts 40% of input carbon to bio-oil and 60% of input carbon to a 60:40 (CH4:CO2) biogas.  (Also recovers the nutrients as commercial grade fertilizers, and we could recover metals separately when using hyperaccumulating plants to mine for metals).At 40% the CO2 is twice the concentration of coal plant exhaust gas using air for combustion.The CO2 capture and storage is inexpensive because it is a by-product of the energy production.Unfortunately, we cannot scale to more than 100% of global energy demand.  However, we can address legacy carbon as follows.  After we put the fossil fuel industry out of business, there would be no credits to pay for additional sequestering.  But we can raise energy costs about 10% to pay for continued capture and storage.  The fossil fuel industry won't revive because they would know we can make their investments worthless by stopping CCS and selling energy for less.Mark E. Capron, PEVentura, Californiawww.PODenergy.org


 Original Message 
Subject: [geo] The latest bad news on carbon capture from coal power
plants: higher costs
From: Andrew Lockley 
Date: Mon, December 07, 2015 3:38 pm
To: geoengineering 

Poster's note : It's likely similar errors have crept into the economic arguments for BECCS  https://theconversation.com/the-latest-bad-news-on-carbon-capture-from-coal-power-plants-higher-costs-51440 The latest bad news on carbon capture from coal power plants: higher costs December 3, 2015 11.06am GMT  Sarang Supekar and Steve Skerlos Coal powered much of the industrial revolution and continues to fuel economic growth in developing nations, including China and India. The dark side of coal, however, is that it generates large quantities of the heat-trapping greenhouse gases, mostly carbon dioxide (CO2), that lead to climate change. This CO2 pollution is in addition to other emissions from coal burning that lead tothousands of premature deaths per day around the world. It was once thought that the CO2 emissions from coal power stations could be controlled by burying CO2 underground economically. However, our recent analysis published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology shows that the concept of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) will be significantly more expensive than previously thought because previous studies miscalculated the energy required. As such, it’s unlikely to provide an economically viable solution to CO2 pollution from coal-based power generators. Coal and global carbon budget As countries think about possible ways to cut their greenhouse gas emissions at the UN Climate Summit in Paris, developing a strategy to curb emissions from coal will be essential to taking meaningful action on climate change. Globally, the use of coal for heat and electricity accounted for over 14 billion metric tonnes (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2014 according to the International Energy Agency. This comprises about one-third of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions. Coal being unloaded from a cargo train in India. China and India collectively have more than 175 gigatons of coal reserves.nicksarebi/flickr Atmospheric concentration of CO2 today is about 400 parts per million (ppm). Our analysis shows that if today’s coal power plants continue operating through the end of their expected service life, they would collectively emit 260 gigatons to 350 gigatons of CO2 by 2050, which would increase CO2 concentration by another 13-18 ppm. Scientists have recommended that CO2 concentration needs to stay within 430-480 ppm to avoid dangerous interference with the climate (defined as two degrees Celsius rise in temperature relative to preindustrial revolution). Coal use in existing power plants alone will thus consume about a third to a half of the remaining “carbon budget” that humanity has to avoid reaching that threshold. CCS to the rescue? Acknowledging the importance of coal in world economic growth alongside the need to reduce CO2 emissions has led to great interest in “Carbon Capture & Sequestration” (CCS) technology. Prominent studies such as Pacala and Socolow, Williams et al, and Hertwich et alsuggest a suite of strategies to meet the CO2 challenge. Notably, all these studies assume the widespread deployment of CCS. For example, Hertwich et al project that CCS would contribute to nearly 85% of global CO2 emission reduction by 2050. CCS essentially involves keeping CO2 out of the atmosphere by capturing the CO2 produced from fossil fuels, compressing it under high pressure, and then transporting it via pipelines or ships for storage in the deep ocean or underground geological reservoirs. How post-combustion carbon capture and storage 

RE: [geo] Re: The importance of bio-CCS to deliver negative emissions

[markcapron]

Brian,Photosynthesis is good only for small scale carbon sequestration unless you somehow avoid sequestering the other plant nutrients (N, P, K, etc.) with the carbon.  Terrestrial photosynthesis also requires fresh water, which is another crisis.Mark 


 Original Message 
Subject: [geo] Re: The importance of bio-CCS to deliver negative
emissions
From: Brian Cartwright 
Date: Sun, December 06, 2015 5:09 am
To: geoengineering 
Cc: "R. D. Schuiling (Olaf)" 

To geoengineering,I always notice that CCS seems to attach itself to "bio" and "bioenergy with" to give itself a natural aura. Is this warranted or greenwashing?On another occasion when I was critical along these lines Olaf Schuiling emailed me to say that converting CO2 to carbonates is what has been happening for billions of years.Is this in fact what happens when pressurized CO2 is injected into underground formations? Or is that conversion such a slow process that we have an expensive engineered time bomb in the interim?These facts don't appear in any discussion I've seen, and as a layman I think they are central to evaluating CCS. Without knowing whether injected CO2 verifiably creates stable carbonates I tend to think CCS is ill-conceived, and photosynthesis is by far my preference for managing CO2.BrianOn Wednesday, December 2, 2015 at 11:57:12 AM UTC-5, Andrew Lockley wrote: http://www.globalccsinstitute.com/insights/authors/AliceGibson/2015/11/25/importance-bio-ccs-deliver-negative-emissions?author=MTU0Nw%3D%3D The importance of bio-CCS to deliver negative emissions< snipped >   --  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] ONC successful at sea dispersion demonstration

[Global Citizen]

http://prwire.com.au/pr/56419/onc-successful-at-sea-demonstration 


Our safe actions must speak louder than words. Here is something that was 
done to coincide with oceans day at the UNFCCC COP 21 in Paris. A 
provisional patent was filed on the same day as the media release. We would 
like to thank in advance all who like,comment and share this posting with 
their network

Peter Wheen
Chairman
Ocean Nourishment Corporation

-- 
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] The ‘Lomborg gambit’ and why the allure of solar geoengineering must be resisted by the Paris negotiators

[Jonathan Marshall]

I would tend to argue that given that establishment powers (political, 
corporate, military and propaganda) have, in general, failed to promote the 
relatively easy routes to combat global warming (such as no new coal mines, 
refurbishing old coal power stations, slowly increasing carbon taxes, repealing 
subsidies for fossil fuels, risking changes in the balance of power etc.) and 
given what appears to be relatively sloppy and unenthusiastic research in CCS 
(especially from coal companies and coal powered electricity generators), it 
would appear strange to assume that the same people will suddenly allow SRM 
research to be done properly or implemented carefully, even if they panic.



This is particularly a problem when it is highly likely that even careful and 
small scale SRM will have complicated systemic effects, and unintended 
consequences.



Research into SRM has quite possibly been delayed for the same reasons that 
simpler effective changes have been delayed: the real issue may be to do with 
social power and vested interests, not technological competence. It may still 
be better to go for simpler solutions first, even if just as a matter of 
demonstrating good faith.



jon


From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com  on 
behalf of Andy Parker 
Sent: Tuesday, 8 December 2015 4:24 AM
To: geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] The ‘Lomborg gambit’ and why the allure of solar 
geoengineering must be resisted by the Paris negotiators

Hi Stephen, the blog post sought to challenge anyone trying to dangle SRM as an 
alternative to emissions cuts, like Lomborg did in 2009. This doesn't apply to 
anyone I know in the expert research community, where people tend to see SRM as 
potential complement to mitigation and adaptation and CDR, not as a 
replacement. So I don’t think there’s anything for us to fall out over here. 
The post takes no issue with researchers trying to understand SRM as a possible 
way to reduce climate risk from the greenhouse gases that are emitted before 
humanity fully decarbonises.

We hoped that the piece would be of interest to this expert community because 
the stunt that Lomborg pulled in 2009 has been all but forgotten in the last 
six years. The fact that he ran a campaign in Copenhagen to tell delegates that 
cutting emissions wouldn't work, directing them to his cost benefit analysis 
that listed SRM as the top alternative, is something that should be remembered. 
We therefore introduced the term ‘Lomborg Gambit’ to describe a deliberate 
attempt to offer solar geoengineering as an alternative to emissions cuts, and 
we wrote the post in case similar attempts are made in Paris.
Andy


On Sunday, December 6, 2015 at 7:12:09 PM UTC+1, Stephen Salter wrote:
Hi All

I began work on renewable energy in 1973 and added geoengineering to my 
workload mainly because it was becoming clear, to me at least, that we would be 
too late.  That is why the use of the words 'siren calls' and 'alternative' 
really hurts.  None of the engineers working on hardware wants it to be used 
but they fear that it will have to be.

Shepherd and Parker must tell us their figure for the probability that emission 
cuts can be achieved in time and how they did the calculation.  If 
geoengineering equipment is ready too late they must ask themselves if they 
carry some blame for the delay.

Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, University of 
Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JL, Scotland s.sa...@ed.ac.uk, Tel +44 
(0)131 650 5704, Cell 07795 203 195, 
WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, YouTube Jamie 
Taylor Power for Change


On 06/12/2015 12:46, Andrew Lockley wrote:

http://dcgeoconsortium.org/2015/12/03/the-lomborg-gambit-and-why-the-allure-of-solar-geoengineering-must-be-resisted-by-the-paris-negotiators-prof-john-shepherd-cbe-frs-and-andy-parker/

The ‘Lomborg gambit’ and why the allure of solar geoengineering must be 
resisted by the Paris negotiators – Prof John Shepherd CBE FRS and Andy Parker

First time here?  Read our "what is climate engineering" page.

Bjørn Lomborg claimed in 2009 that cutting greenhouse gas emissions would not 
succeed in halting climate change – and put up posters and a building-sized 
billboard to promote this message during the UN climate talks in Copenhagen. 
This defeatist attitude, driven by pessimistic assumptions about political 
possibilities and simplistic cost/benefit calculations, is hardly unique. But 
the self-styled “Skeptical Environmentalist” went well beyond mere pessimism, 
claiming that “there are better ways to fix the climate”. So what was Mr 
Lomborg’s preferred alternative to the UN talks? It was solar geoengineering, a 
controversial—and speculative—set of proposals for lowering global temperature 
by blocking incoming sunlight on a planetary scale.

Lomborg’s adverts around Copenhagen were all but