[geo] The Climate Engineers Sucking CO2 From the Atmosphere—and Making Money Doing It - Bloomberg

[Andrew Lockley]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-05/the-climate-engineers-sucking-co2-from-the-atmosphere-and-making-money-doing-it


The Climate Engineers Sucking CO₂ From the Atmosphere—and Making Money
Doing It
 Chris Gebald and Jan Wurzbacher turned a college project into a
world-changing machine.
By
Brian Parkin
 5 September 2017, 17:00 GMT+1
 ILLUSTRATOR: SAM KERR

More than a decade into their friendship, Christoph Gebald and Jan
Wurzbacher can’t decide which of them is the thinker and which is the doer.
They met in 2003 during their first week as undergraduates at ETH Zurich, a
Swiss technical university, where they studied engineering and quickly
bonded over their shared loves for mountain climbing and beer. Also, “we
were kind of would-be entrepreneurs from the beginning,” Gebald says.
They’ve been egging each other on ever since, swapping big-idea and
get-things-done roles.

Climeworks, the company they started in Zurich in 2009, was inspired by
Gebald’s master’s thesis, which applied an engineering perspective to the
removal of carbon dioxide from Earth’s atmosphere. In June, when the first
of the duo’s carbon-collecting machines went online, they became the first
people to make money by de-warming the planet, collecting CO₂ directly from
the air and selling it for use in greenhouses.

Each CO₂ collector, called a capture plant, looks like a 7-foot-tall box
fan with a tiny jet engine inside. As its turbine sucks in air, chemical
filters isolate the greenhouse gas. It can then be pumped for use as is,
but Wurzbacher and Gebald are hoping customers will pay them to sequester
it in the ground, permanently. The founders like to cite the findings of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says CO₂ storage will
be an essential part of meeting global targets to limit the Earth’s
warming. “Climeworks is on the leading edge of this,” says Steve Bohlen, an
energy technology program manager at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
, a federal research facility
near San Francisco. In July, Bohlen cited Climeworks as a company to watch
in testimony on carbon capture technology before the U.S. Senate
subcommittee on the environment.

Earlier this year the company secured its first commercial partner,
contracting with a local farmer of tomatoes and cucumbers to supply 900
tons of CO₂ per year to his greenhouses, where it works as a sort of
gaseous fertilizer, speeding up photosynthesis. Climeworks’ founders say
their near-term goal is to capture 1 percent of global carbon emissions by
2025, but the grand plan is to help humans remove more CO₂ from the
atmosphere than they’re pumping into it. “We’re insurance as the going gets
tough,” Wurzbacher says. “The world will need affordable machines that can
recork the CO₂ genie on a massive scale, render it usable or harmless in
storage.” Working around the clock, each capture plant can vacuum about 50
tons of CO₂ from the atmosphere a year, Wurzbacher says. He and Gebald
declined to share pricing details but said costs will fall rapidly once
production ramps up.

Some costs, however, are tough to predict. “Our biggest headache planning
ahead is second-guessing politicians. Political support for climate
protection is prone to wobble,” Gebald says. “Even so, we’re witnessing an
independent private-sector drive to curb CO₂ that’s resilient to politics.
We’re counting on a big role for Climeworks in the emerging carbon economy.”

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [geo] GMDD - The Carbon Dioxide Removal Model Intercomparison Project (CDR-MIP): Rationale and experimental design

[Renaud de RICHTER]

Is it possible for the different teams of the  Model Intercomparison
Project to now exted their analyses to GHGR Removal, instead of restraint
to CDR?

As written on 22nd August 2017, in another post by Phil Williamson (Science
Coordinator: UK GGR programme), the UK recently-started a *Greenhouse Gas
Removal *research programme (http://www.nerc.ac.uk/researc
h/funded/programmes/ggr/).


2017-09-05 15:16 GMT+02:00 Ronal W. Larson :

> List  and cc Andrew:
>
> Thanks again to Andrew for bringing these articles to our attention.  In
> addition to Andrew’s cite below,  the full (free) article is at:
>
> https://www.geosci-model-dev-discuss.net/gmd-2017-168/gmd-2017-168.pdf
>
> To summarize the article from a biochar perspective:  the word “biochar”
> appears once as a possible natural technology and in the title of one
> reference.  However, like BECCS, biochar is not one of the CDR approaches
> to be considered in this CDR-MIP.   The COP 21 and 22 emphases on soil
> carbon and the CDR opinions of agronomists and soil scientists will not be
> explored in this study.   Afforestation/reforestation is included as one of
> the three approaches for detail - so a part of biochar and BECCS will be
> there, but soil carbon content won’t change much in the models.
>
> The final pages have some potentially useful graphs.  I look forward to
> reading some new general CDR cites.
>
> Ron
>
>
> On Sep 5, 2017, at 5:57 AM, Andrew Lockley 
> wrote:
>
> https://www.geosci-model-dev-discuss.net/gmd-2017-168/
>
> The Carbon Dioxide Removal Model Intercomparison Project (CDR-MIP):
> Rationale and experimental design
> David P. Keller1, Andrew Lenton2,3, Vivian Scott4, Naomi E. Vaughan5,
> Nico Bauer6, Duoying Ji7, Chris D. Jones8, Ben Kravitz9, Helene Muri10,
> and Kirsten Zickfeld111GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel,
> Germany
> 2CSIRO Oceans and Atmospheres, Hobart, Australia
> 3Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, Hobart,
> Australia
> 4School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh
> 5Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Environmental
> Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
> 6Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Research Domain
> Sustainable Solutions, 14473 Potsdam, Germany
> 7College of Global Change and Earth System Science, Beijing Normal
> University, Beijing, China
> 8Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK
> 9Atmospheric Sciences and Global Change Division, Pacific Northwest
> National Laboratory, Richland, WA, USA
> 10Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
> 11Department of Geography, Simon Fraser University , Burnaby, Canada
> Received: 11 Jul 2017 – Accepted for review: 16 Aug 2017 – Discussion
> started: 17 Aug 2017
> Abstract. The recent IPCC reports state that continued anthropogenic
> greenhouse gas emissions are changing the climate threatening "severe,
> pervasive and irreversible" impacts. Slow progress in emissions reduction
> to mitigate climate change is resulting in increased attention on what is
> called *Geoengineering*, *Climate Engineering*, or *Climate Intervention* –
> deliberate interventions to counter climate change that seek to either
> modify the Earth's radiation budget or remove greenhouse gases such as CO2 
> from
> the atmosphere. When focused on CO2, the latter of these categories is
> called Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR). The majority of future emission
> scenarios that stay well below 2 °C, and nearly all emission scenarios that
> do not exceed 1.5 °C warming by the year 2100, require some form of CDR. At
> present, there is little consensus on the impacts and efficacy of the
> different types of proposed CDR. To address this need the Carbon Dioxide
> Removal Model Intercomparison Project (or CDR-MIP) was initiated. This
> project brings together models of the Earth system in a common framework to
> explore the potential, impacts, and challenges of CDR. Here, we describe
> the first set of CDR-MIP experiments that are designed to address questions
> concerning CDR-induced climate "reversibility", the response of the Earth
> system to direct atmospheric CO2 removal (direct air capture and
> storage), and the CDR potential and impacts of afforestation/reforestation,
> as well as ocean alkalinization.
>
> *Citation:* Keller, D. P., Lenton, A., Scott, V., Vaughan, N. E., Bauer,
> N., Ji, D., Jones, C. D., Kravitz, B., Muri, H., and Zickfeld, K.: The
> Carbon Dioxide Removal Model Intercomparison Project (CDR-MIP): Rationale
> and experimental design, Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss.,
> https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2017-168, in review, 2017
>
>

-- 
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 

Re: [geo] GMDD - The Carbon Dioxide Removal Model Intercomparison Project (CDR-MIP): Rationale and experimental design

[Ronal W. Larson]

List  and cc Andrew:

Thanks again to Andrew for bringing these articles to our attention.  
In addition to Andrew’s cite below,  the full (free) article is at: 

https://www.geosci-model-dev-discuss.net/gmd-2017-168/gmd-2017-168.pdf 


To summarize the article from a biochar perspective:  the word 
“biochar” appears once as a possible natural technology and in the title of one 
reference.  However, like BECCS, biochar is not one of the CDR approaches to be 
considered in this CDR-MIP.   The COP 21 and 22 emphases on soil carbon and the 
CDR opinions of agronomists and soil scientists will not be explored in this 
study.   Afforestation/reforestation is included as one of the three approaches 
for detail - so a part of biochar and BECCS will be there, but soil carbon 
content won’t change much in the models.

The final pages have some potentially useful graphs.  I look forward to 
reading some new general CDR cites.

Ron


> On Sep 5, 2017, at 5:57 AM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
> 
> https://www.geosci-model-dev-discuss.net/gmd-2017-168/ 
> 
> 
> The Carbon Dioxide Removal Model Intercomparison Project (CDR-MIP): Rationale 
> and experimental design
> David P. Keller1, Andrew Lenton2,3, Vivian Scott4, Naomi E. Vaughan5, Nico 
> Bauer6, Duoying Ji7, Chris D. Jones8, Ben Kravitz9, Helene Muri10, and 
> Kirsten Zickfeld11
> 1GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel, Germany
> 2CSIRO Oceans and Atmospheres, Hobart, Australia
> 3Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, Hobart, 
> Australia
> 4School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh
> 5Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Environmental 
> Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
> 6Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Research Domain Sustainable 
> Solutions, 14473 Potsdam, Germany
> 7College of Global Change and Earth System Science, Beijing Normal 
> University, Beijing, China
> 8Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK
> 9Atmospheric Sciences and Global Change Division, Pacific Northwest National 
> Laboratory, Richland, WA, USA
> 10Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
> 11Department of Geography, Simon Fraser University , Burnaby, Canada
> Received: 11 Jul 2017 – Accepted for review: 16 Aug 2017 – Discussion 
> started: 17 Aug 2017
> Abstract. The recent IPCC reports state that continued anthropogenic 
> greenhouse gas emissions are changing the climate threatening "severe, 
> pervasive and irreversible" impacts. Slow progress in emissions reduction to 
> mitigate climate change is resulting in increased attention on what is called 
> Geoengineering, Climate Engineering, or Climate Intervention – deliberate 
> interventions to counter climate change that seek to either modify the 
> Earth's radiation budget or remove greenhouse gases such as CO2 from the 
> atmosphere. When focused on CO2, the latter of these categories is called 
> Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR). The majority of future emission scenarios that 
> stay well below 2 °C, and nearly all emission scenarios that do not exceed 
> 1.5 °C warming by the year 2100, require some form of CDR. At present, there 
> is little consensus on the impacts and efficacy of the different types of 
> proposed CDR. To address this need the Carbon Dioxide Removal Model 
> Intercomparison Project (or CDR-MIP) was initiated. This project brings 
> together models of the Earth system in a common framework to explore the 
> potential, impacts, and challenges of CDR. Here, we describe the first set of 
> CDR-MIP experiments that are designed to address questions concerning 
> CDR-induced climate "reversibility", the response of the Earth system to 
> direct atmospheric CO2 removal (direct air capture and storage), and the CDR 
> potential and impacts of afforestation/reforestation, as well as ocean 
> alkalinization.
> 
> 
> Citation: Keller, D. P., Lenton, A., Scott, V., Vaughan, N. E., Bauer, N., 
> Ji, D., Jones, C. D., Kravitz, B., Muri, H., and Zickfeld, K.: The Carbon 
> Dioxide Removal Model Intercomparison Project (CDR-MIP): Rationale and 
> experimental design, Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss., 
> https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2017-168 , 
> in review, 2017
> 
> -- 
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering 
> .
> For more options, visit 

[geo] GMDD - The Carbon Dioxide Removal Model Intercomparison Project (CDR-MIP): Rationale and experimental design

[Andrew Lockley]

https://www.geosci-model-dev-discuss.net/gmd-2017-168/

The Carbon Dioxide Removal Model Intercomparison Project (CDR-MIP):
Rationale and experimental design
David P. Keller1, Andrew Lenton2,3, Vivian Scott4, Naomi E. Vaughan5, Nico
Bauer6, Duoying Ji7, Chris D. Jones8, Ben Kravitz9, Helene Muri10, and
Kirsten Zickfeld111GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel, Germany
2CSIRO Oceans and Atmospheres, Hobart, Australia
3Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre, Hobart,
Australia
4School of GeoSciences, University of Edinburgh
5Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, School of Environmental
Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK
6Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Research Domain Sustainable
Solutions, 14473 Potsdam, Germany
7College of Global Change and Earth System Science, Beijing Normal
University, Beijing, China
8Met Office Hadley Centre, Exeter, UK
9Atmospheric Sciences and Global Change Division, Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory, Richland, WA, USA
10Department of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
11Department of Geography, Simon Fraser University , Burnaby, Canada
Received: 11 Jul 2017 – Accepted for review: 16 Aug 2017 – Discussion
started: 17 Aug 2017
Abstract. The recent IPCC reports state that continued anthropogenic
greenhouse gas emissions are changing the climate threatening "severe,
pervasive and irreversible" impacts. Slow progress in emissions reduction
to mitigate climate change is resulting in increased attention on what is
called *Geoengineering*, *Climate Engineering*, or *Climate Intervention* –
deliberate interventions to counter climate change that seek to either
modify the Earth's radiation budget or remove greenhouse gases such as CO2 from
the atmosphere. When focused on CO2, the latter of these categories is
called Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR). The majority of future emission
scenarios that stay well below 2 °C, and nearly all emission scenarios that
do not exceed 1.5 °C warming by the year 2100, require some form of CDR. At
present, there is little consensus on the impacts and efficacy of the
different types of proposed CDR. To address this need the Carbon Dioxide
Removal Model Intercomparison Project (or CDR-MIP) was initiated. This
project brings together models of the Earth system in a common framework to
explore the potential, impacts, and challenges of CDR. Here, we describe
the first set of CDR-MIP experiments that are designed to address questions
concerning CDR-induced climate "reversibility", the response of the Earth
system to direct atmospheric CO2 removal (direct air capture and storage),
and the CDR potential and impacts of afforestation/reforestation, as well
as ocean alkalinization.

*Citation:* Keller, D. P., Lenton, A., Scott, V., Vaughan, N. E., Bauer,
N., Ji, D., Jones, C. D., Kravitz, B., Muri, H., and Zickfeld, K.: The
Carbon Dioxide Removal Model Intercomparison Project (CDR-MIP): Rationale
and experimental design, Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss.,
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-2017-168, in review, 2017

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Geoengineering: Perceived controllability : Nature Climate Change : Nature Research

[Andrew Lockley]

Poster's note: if someone can reply with the paper, that would be great. I
can't stand Nature's policy of withholding even the abstract.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v7/n9/full/nclimate3384.html

GEOENGINEERING
Perceived controllability

   - Jenn Richler
   

Nature Climate Change 7, 624 (2017)doi:10.1038/nclimate3384Published online 01
September 2017
Article tools

   - Citation
   
   - Rights & permissions
   

   - Article metrics
   

*Global Environ. Change* *45*, 194–202 (2017)


Scientists and engineers are beginning to assess the feasibility of
geoengineering interventions, such as removing CO2 from the atmosphere, to
complement emissions reductions to moderate climate change. Because these
efforts rely on new and unfamiliar technology they have attracted public
scrutiny. However, it is not…
Subject terms:

   - Climate-change mitigation
   
   - Decision making 
   - Governance 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.