Re: [geo] Leaked policy draft of SR15 - what do you think?

[Andrew Lockley]

I'm not sure whether I qualify as an expert. I've published a few
semi-relevant academic journal pieces, and written a lot of journalistic
articles on new energy.

Here's my take.

Firstly, there has been no meaningful reduction in CO2 emissions, as a
result of government policies. Almost all the reduction in the developed
world has come from a switch to gas, and from offshoring heavy industries.

Unless we have a wholesale shift in the taxation system, from income/profit
to carbon, government will remain irrelevant in the global warming debate
(other than a funder of basic research).

However, I'm really not that worried about continuing emissions - and
here's why...

You probably got your first mobile phone around 20 years ago. Now, you
probably make 90pc of your calls by mobile. You probably got Netflix less
than 5 years ago, and you now probably watch 80pc of your TV through
streaming. You probably got your microwave oven 30 years ago, and you
probably do 80pc of your cooking with it.

Fossils are on the cusp of obsolescence.

The cheapest electricity in the world is gulf solar. Solar is now at grid
parity in many states and countries around the world. Solar modules are
halving in cost every seven years or so, and storage costs are also on a
similar experience curve. Even in the chilly, cloudy UK, solar farms with
batteries are already being built with commercial money, not subsidies.
This trend isn't going to change.

It's often assumed that fossil plant will be used until it conks out, but I
disagree. In 20yrs, solar will be around a quarter of current prices (not
all the costs are falling, only the modules and batteries). Nobody will be
digging up much coal to burn, when solar is so cheap. Batteries are great
for daily storage, but power-to-gas is likely to be essential for seasonal
storage. So, we'll still have thermal plant - but not fossil fuels.

Accordingly, GHG emissions will be minimal mid-century. Chiefly, livestock
and land use change will drive the residual component - and that's assuming
we won't be eating synthetic meat, crickets, or whatever (all fairly likely
options).

Anyway, that's my tuppence. I'm happy to hear dissenting views.

A


On 12 Jan 2018 18:51, "lou del bello"  wrote:

> Dear all
>
> As some of you may have seen, the policy draft, circulated among a
> selected group of scientists and policymakers, has been leaked to the
> press .
> I was wondering what you make of the story: I am writing an article about
> it and looking for an expert take.
>
> Mainly from a media point of view I think it would be interesting to
> explain why the IPCC is quite secretive about this report, which is an
> opportunity to introduce its political relevance, as well as scientific.
>
>
> Best,
>
>
> Lou
>
> --
> *Lou Del Bello*
>
> *Mobile UK +44 (0)7900632250 <+44%207900%20632250>*
>
>
> Multimedia journalist
>
> @loudelbello
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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.
>

-- 
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] Fwd: [CDR] BECCS water–food–ecosystem trade-offs

[Andrew Lockley]

X-post
-- Forwarded message --
From: "Greg Rau" 
Date: 13 Jan 2018 19:12
Subject: [CDR] BECCS water–food–ecosystem trade-offs
To: "Carbon Dioxide Removal" 
Cc:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11625-017-0522-5

"Negative emission technologies such as bioenergy with carbon capture and
storage (BECCS) are regarded as an option to achieve the climatic target of
the Paris Agreement. However, our understanding of the realistic
sustainable feasibility of the global lands for BECCS remains uncertain. In
this study, we assess the impact of BECCS deployment scenarios on the land
systems including land use, water resources, and ecosystem services.
Specifically, we assess three land-use scenarios to achieve the total
amount of 3.3 GtC year−1 (annual negative emission level required for
IPCC-RCP 2.6) emission reduction by growing bioenergy crops which requires
huge use of global agricultural and forest lands and water. Our study shows
that (1) vast conversion of food cropland into rainfed bio-crop cultivation
yields a considerable loss of food production that may not be tolerable
considering the population increase in the future. (2) When irrigation is
applied to bio-crop production, the bioenergy crop productivity is
enhanced. This suppresses the necessary area for bio-crop production to
half, and saves the land for agricultural productions. However, water
consumption is doubled and this may exacerbate global water stress. (3) If
conversion of forest land for bioenergy crop cultivation is allowed without
protecting the natural forests, large areas of tropical forest could be
used for bioenergy crop production. Forest biomass and soil carbon stocks
are reduced, implying degradation of the climate regulation and other
ecosystem services. These results suggest that without a careful
consideration of the land use for bioenergy crop production, a large-scale
implementation of BECCS could negatively impact food, water and ecosystem
services that are supporting fundamental human sustainability."

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to carbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/CarbonDioxideRemoval.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/
msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/2092737795.1903869.1515870691997%40mail.yahoo.com

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

[geo] Re: Leaked policy draft of SR15 - what do you think?

[Leon Di Marco]

*Note that the IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming Report 
of 1.5C, which is due to be published in September 2018   has its own site 
at-*

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/sr15/

which has a tab to the working groups-

http://www.ipcc.ch/working_groups/working_groups.shtml

and in particular  WG3-

*The IPCC Working Group III (WG III) assesses options for mitigating 
climate change through limiting or preventing greenhouse gas emissions and 
enhancing activities that remove them from the atmosphere. The main 
economic sectors are taken into account, both in a near-term and in a 
long-term perspective. The sectors include energy, transport, buildings, 
industry, agriculture, forestry, waste management. The WG analyses the 
costs and benefits of the different approaches to mitigation, considering 
also the available instruments and policy measures. The approach is more 
and more solution-oriented.   *

the priorities for governments for the next full IPCC Assessment Report 
AR6, which is due in 2021, are shown in a presentation from September 2017 
by a co chair of WG3, Jim Skea, as-

https://www.ipcc-wg3.ac.uk/Presentations/JimSkea_EIB_20170927.pdf


*Government questionnaire: priority topics for WG III-*
*Geo-engineering, including limits, negative emissions  **2nd highest 
priority for govts*   


LDM


On Friday, January 12, 2018 at 6:51:01 PM UTC, lou.delbello wrote:
>
> Dear all
>
> As some of you may have seen, the policy draft, circulated among a 
> selected group of scientists and policymakers, has been leaked to the 
> press .
> I was wondering what you make of the story: I am writing an article about 
> it and looking for an expert take.
>
> Mainly from a media point of view I think it would be interesting to 
> explain why the IPCC is quite secretive about this report, which is an 
> opportunity to introduce its political relevance, as well as scientific.
>
>
> Best,
>
>
> Lou
>
> -- 
> *Lou Del Bello*
>
> *Mobile UK +44 (0)7900632250*
>
>
> Multimedia journalist 
>
> @loudelbello
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
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] Trivalent Approach Needed to the Effective Geoengineering

[Veli Albert Kallio]

We have recently been discussing here at Geoengineering group about slowing 
down the collapsing ice shelves by building barrier sills on the outlets of ice 
fjords and ice shelves - and perhaps diverting subglacial water flows from 
beneath ice sheet to keep the ice shelf fronts cooler to slow down melting 
especially near the grounding line. I draw now attention to the need of large 
water body oxygenation as pointed out by this new major study and draw 
attention to our presentation at World Water Week in Stockholm back in August 
2006.


Stabilizing glaciers (mountain glaciers, ice shelves, ice sheets), sea ice, and 
oxygenation of large water bodies to undo the effects of climate change should 
account as geoengineering - although these cannot be simply categorized as SRM 
or CDR. I suggest a new term Climate Impact Mitigation (CIM) should be added to 
classify these difficult-to-categorize approaches in the old bivalent 
geoengineering nomenclature. Indeed, important as it is like preventing the sea 
level rise, the article below is extremely important to our group discussion.

I would like to hear pro- and con- on enlarging the bivalent classification of 
geoengineering to a trivalent approach as geoengineering medicine to the ailing 
mother earth...


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180104153511.htm

The ocean is losing its breath -- here's the global scope: In broadest view yet 
of world's low oxygen, scientists reveal dangers and 
solutions
www.sciencedaily.com
In the past 50 years, the amount of water in the open ocean with zero oxygen 
has gone up more than fourfold. In coastal water bodies, including estuaries 
and seas, low-oxygen sites have increased more than tenfold since 1950. 
Scientists expect oxygen to continue dropping even outside these zones as Earth 
warms.

Kallio, Veli A. & Lappalainen, M.: Preparing the Amazon Ecosystems for the 
Changing Climate, pp. 240-241.


"A catastrophic draught event was reported across much of the north of South 
America during August - December 2005. This resulted in extensive and 
irreversible damage in parts of the
Amazon river network. The 2005 Amazon draught followed very unusual changes in 
the Atlantic Ocean’s circulatory system that altered typical wind and rain 
patterns. Many climatic models predict the future desiccation of the Amazon 
region. This paper discusses dangers of sudden swings in the Amazon’s climate 
and how these risks can be reduced and securing the future of the river system.

The Amazon river systems’ inability to adapt to the new seasonal climate 
patterns in 2005, which led to a complete destruction of some river ecosystems, 
suggested us to look at water engineering solutions to prevent the risks of 
more tributaries of such dying. We made a case study to oxygenate the Amazon 
river to raise its draught-stress threshold during the likely future draughts 
that may be even worse than today if the Atlantic weather system generates more 
storms as the world’s temperature rises.

We studied a 100 kilometre wide section near the Amazon’s mouth. We assumed 
temperature +30C (when 100% oxygenated water contains 7,6 mg O2 / litre). The 
addition of 2,5 mg O2 / l represents 1/3 of the total, i.e. raising from 70% to 
100%. This large water body oxygenation project requires 4 million kg O2 / day. 
2,000 MIXOX units consume 80 MW / 100 km of river. 1,000 km demand is at 800 MW 
(1 power station), costing ~500 million euros p.a."


https://www.academia.edu/4299120/Kallio_Veli_A._and_Lappalainen_M._Preparing_the_Amazon_Ecosystems_for_the_Changing_Climate_pp._240-241

[http://a.academia-assets.com/images/open-graph-icons/fb-paper.gif]

Kallio, Veli A. & Lappalainen, M.: Preparing the Amazon Ecosystems for the 
Changing Climate, pp. 
240-241.
www.academia.edu
"A catastrophic draught event was reported across much of the north of South 
America during August - December 2005. This resulted in extensive and 
irreversible damage in parts of the Amazon river network. The 2005 Amazon 
draught followed very




-- 
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] A Radical New Scheme to Prevent Catastrophic Sea-Level Rise

[Michael Hayes]

Renaud and list,

I took up the study of Ice Shelf Instabilities some time ago and I've realize 
that there is the possibility of catching super cool brine, which is produced 
on the bottom side of ice sheets, and pumping the cold brine up under the 
leading edge of the ice shelf. 

The artificial inflow of the supercooled brine would help stabilize the ice 
shelf that is beginning to loose its base.

The tech is simple and cheap. The pump energy can be provided by the heave wave 
energy under the ice sheet.

I'm building an open file on this FB thread:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1435614993155015=11195830750

Best,

-- 
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.