Re: [geo] Geoengineering piece on Aspen Public Radio
Alan: I agree that the report was balanced, if the criterion is knowledge in 2008 - the earliest date on the LLNL figure. To give ocean fertilization as the only example of CDR is not being very investigative or balanced. I have the same complaint about the CIA study behind the NPR piece, which is also only looking at examples - with a trivial budget. Almost guaranteed to miss the most likely winners. Ron - Original Message - From: Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu To: Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, August 2, 2013 4:00:41 PM Subject: [geo] Geoengineering piece on Aspen Public Radio Another short piece on geoengineering, interviewing several people involved. It is quite balanced, as you would expect from Public Radio. http://aspenpublicradio.org/post/geoengineering-technological-fix-climate-change Alan Robock Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor Editor, Reviews of Geophysics Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751 Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 14 College Farm Road E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock http://twitter.com/AlanRobock -- 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/groups/opt_out. -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Global Warming: Geoengineering Trucks and Climate Change Adaptation
Stephen: Very sorry to hear of the serious flooding in Freetown. But this list is not the correct one to look to for support. I would suggest that using electricity to turn water to steam would be a good more expensive than a wood-fired system. Some electricity would of course be needed for pumping - and one would hope that most of the water could be moved by pumping, not through steam generation. Ron - Original Message - From: Stephen step...@trpns.com To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 7:31:17 AM Subject: [geo] Global Warming: Geoengineering Trucks and Climate Change Adaptation http://www.sierraexpressmedia.com/archives/59059 Flood makes headlines – many times – every year for havoc it brings to individuals, communities, cities and nations. It affects developed and developing countries. It results, at varying magnitude, from natural and human activities. Floods can be harsh with impact lasting for several months. Control and management methods increasingly used, most times, fall short of preventing damage. In recent months, climate change has been cited as responsible massive flooding experienced around the world. Climate change also, is ascribed to other anomaly in weather condition noticed around. Global warming, for which reason we have climate change, is internationally debated for agreement concerning control. Flooding is severe for developing countries – where erosion ravages too. In sub-Saharan Africa and South-East Asia, there is crisis with these situations and recovery – most times – is minute, or never. There is a solution; a truck, about the size of the regular gas truck, having a system of electric steam boiler rather than the tank, to steam away floods, or erosion. This is a fresh concept, with power to cut water amounts from any site within minutes. An electric steam boiler system will be attached to a truck. It will have an inlet, and outlet. The inlet will draw in water, into a distillation chamber of low pressure and mid-temperature. Processed water after this stage would go into the immersion heating element chamber, to be transformed to steam, then to the outlet, into the atmosphere. The system will steam up to 20 liters of water – per minute – for a session of three hours, with efficiency of more than 90%. Three to five trucks can be used at the same time, to hasten the objective and reduce damage. The electric steam boiler system will be powered by the new rechargeable systems used in electric cars, and will work independently of the vehicle engine. In future the electric system may power the vehicle and the boiler, but for more uptime and efficiency, all the available energy will go towards delivering steam. Design of the truck, its features and impact on meteorology is a research report away. Details in the report will visit components, arrangement, scale, usability, control, environmental impacts and advantages. The trucks will be preferably used in daylight, when steam can easily mix with air, and not ‘immediately’ affect ‘humidity’ or alter the weather. Setting up the technology is not going to be rocket science, but work to be done, will lie mostly on its impact on the meteorology. This aspect makes the technology similar to Geoengineering. Geoengineering (or climate engineering) is the deliberate and large-scale intervention in the Earth’s climatic system with the aim of reducing global warming. Geoengineering targets the root causes of global warming, but the truck targets results of climate change. Geoengineering can be categorized with mitigation of global warming-causing factors, but the truck technology aligns with climate change adaptation. With some of the similarities and differences, the trucks can be called Geoengineering trucks, since it alters environment conditions, to foster normalcy. Geoengineering trucks hold enormous potential, they will be useful all over the world, and will benefit remote, urban and rural areas. For Africa and South-East Asia, hope will rise for safety; for developed economies, focus will shift to this new area of flood control. There will be less risk, for people and properties, and this response, will add to emergency plan – everywhere. Trucks should go at wholesale, to counties, associations, groups, states, ministries, nations, organizations, foundations and corporations. Price will eventually be determined, but in the range of $20,000 – $30,000. This means much for insurance firms, for the academe and those who have lost precious ones from floods and erosion. This technology can be ready by year-end, and should ship in 2014. -- 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
Re: [geo] My big-quick-secure CO2 cleanup proposal is still alive at the MIT geoengineering competition
William : Can you give a URL for the judges report? Ron - Original Message - From: William H. Calvin william.cal...@gmail.com To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 8:10:28 PM Subject: [geo] My big-quick-secure CO2 cleanup proposal is still alive at the MIT geoengineering competition I seem to be one of the three finalists in this geoengineering competition, despite both judges remaining dubious and dismissive. You can judge for yourself, as it is all at http://climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/20/planId/1302501 My detailed response is in the Comment following the judges’ report. (Note that the revised proposal you see is not the original proposal the judges saw and from which I quoted in my reply Comment). The 2,000 word limit forced me to boil it down at lot but it has also become, I hope, a bit more understandable for those who haven't been following developments since 1983. A more complete proposal is in my short book, The Great CO2 Cleanup , at the Kindle store or the PDF at http://WilliamCalvin.org/bk16 . I have until Monday to make revisions to the proposal before final judging. Please email suggestions. If you wish to add public comments or “Supporter” endorsements, the Comments tab has a login/register link. I am encouraged to “use on-line social networks” to build support, something I am not good at doing. This competition is my best chance so far to get a wider audience to consider my reframing of the climate problem and its implications for the time scale of needed climate actions. Thanks to many of you for earlier comments, -Bill William H. Calvin, Ph.D. University of Washington, School of Medicine. -- 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/groups/opt_out . -- 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] CRD: not very relevant and a distraction
Damon cc Greg etal My concern is not with the text of your several Science pieces, but rather with the term irreversible It seems (below and your earlier papers) you really do believe that human efforts (say starting with 100 Gt C afforestation ala Dr. Hansen) can have a measurable reversibility impact. Can you clarify how those of us interested in CDR should explain your use of the term irreversible - which I believe contradicts your writings? - Original Message - From: H. Damon Matthews damon.matth...@concordia.ca To: Greg Rau gh...@sbcglobal.net Cc: andrew lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com, geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com, so...@mit.edu Solomon so...@mit.edu Sent: Friday, July 5, 2013 12:21:58 PM Subject: Re: [geo] CRD: not very relevant and a distraction In my mind, the question of what is CDR and what is not, is a matter of scale and intent. There may not be any clear line in many cases, but the question of intent is important, as is the level of technological intervention that is involved. I would say a deliberate attempt to enhance natural sinks is by definition CDR, though the line is particularly fuzzy with afforestation (which has generally positive impacts on various ecosystem services and biodiversity, as well as promoting carbon storage and sequestration). I am not categorically opposed to all CDR proposals (though I admit I am to some). I just think that decreasing emissions themselves has to be our first priority, and that everything else is second-order in importance. I also think it is too early still to say that mitigation efforts have failed or are doomed to failure. Yes, global emissions continue to increase (as does atmospheric CO2), largely, I would say, due to a failure to deal adequately with international disparities in wealth and development needs -- but human societies are highly non-linear (unlike the climate system!) and there is still room for rapid change and progress on this front. -Damon On 2013-07-05, at 2:03 PM, Greg Rau gh...@sbcglobal.net wrote: Thanks Damon. To clarify, if as you say natural CO2 uptake processes are not CDR, are attempts to increase/enhance such processes to be viewed as CDR? There also seems to be an assumption in your argument against CDR that the application of emissions reduction technology is now resource limited, and if only more resources were available for emissions reduction our problem would be solved. An obvious but unlikely experiment would be to inject a few $T into emissions reduction and see what happens to the Keeling curve. My guess is that we have already cumulatively injected $1T into efficiency, renewable energy, and CCS, and the results, re air CO2 concentration, speak for themselves. Then there are the policy failure arguments as to why emission reduction isn't working. But for whatever reason, conventional approaches clearly are not sufficiently working now and, under the circumstances, there should be growing concern about if they will ever adequately work and in the time frame required. With it's effectiveness proven by nature, enhancing/modifying natural CDR (or less likely, inventing new methods) provides a possible backup plan that should be viewed as a potentially valuable ally not as a threat or distraction to stabilizing air CO2 concentration if not reducing it. Note to Andrew and geo list: For some reason my response to Andrew's July 4 post (second and third notes below) did not make it on the geo posting. So there they are below (assuming that this current posting works). Also, Andrew mentioned to me that the links I provided in my original post (bottom below) are paywalled (I guess to non-AAAS members?). So hopefully attached in all of their glory is the letter and the Matthews and Solomon response. Further comments invited. Greg blockquote From: H. Damon Matthews damon.matth...@concordia.ca To: Greg Rau gh...@sbcglobal.net Cc: andrew.lock...@gmail.com andrew.lock...@gmail.com ; R. D. Schuiling, (Olaf) r.d.schuil...@uu.nl ; geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com ; H. Damon Matthews damon.matth...@concordia.ca ; so...@mit.edu so...@mit.edu Sent: Friday, July 5, 2013 6:57 AM Subject: Re: [geo] CRD: not very relevant and a distraction Hi Greg, I guess I may as well weigh in on this … my intent in writing our reply to your letter was not to label CDRers as a menace to the planet. However, I do think there is a risk of distraction from the (not easy!) task of decreasing emissions. CDR is *not* the same as natural carbons dioxide uptake by sinks -- it is a deliberate human intervention that requires both effort and the investment of time and money. Given that these are limited resources, there will always be a danger of diverting these resources from other priorities to which they could have been applied. Incidentally, I was also aiming for optimism in writing our
[geo] Augmented Salty Arctic Ice Albedo Idea Revisited
Peter, cc List Greg Rau 1. I wonder if you or anyone on the list could comment on an idea that popped in my head today re your interesting salt water Arctic ice thickening SRM approach. The idea following mainly changes the wind energy source over to a biomass-biochar approach. Other biomass approaches might work, but I think the economics will favor biochar. For those new to this topic see past arctic-ice-albedo discussions on this Geo list and part of a Peter Flynn paper that was attached on the 17th or available at: http://web.mail.comcast.net/service/home/~/Climatic%20Change%20%282005%29%2071%20203-220.pdf?auth=coloc=en_USid=1952820part=2 2. The main positive differences for biochar over wind are: a. energy and power always available when snow/ice-making can be optimum b. a salable energy biofuel mitigation co-product (biodiesel, etc) is possible to defray costs c. a salable co-product (charcoal) can also defray costs d. there is a global CDR benefit (extra income dollars) on top of the needed SRM (albedo) income from the ice-making - same service-oriented incomes as any other CDR/SRM approach e. possibly there can be additional sequestering CO2 through production of carbonates (an approach of interest to Greg Rau??) f. can use dead wood and other biomass from Arctic sources that would be rotting anyway - and no better way to exploit this resource g the needed extra 24-7 manpower should be helpful in putting our more ice per year per platform (maybe also per $?) h. almost any power and energy level is available - much more than for the nominal 1 MW or less wind turbine, so greater height and areal coverage for snow making i. can be a platform for wind systems also. j. maybe there can also be a methane capture aspect. k. maybe there are other income streams (eco-tourism, commercial fishing, science support, etc) to an array of big old boats. 3. The similarities to wind, compared to other SRM approaches are considerable a Can learn a lot from one unit b. Impacts local, easily seen and verified c. Numerous countries can contribute, together or separately. d Governance no worse than any other approach and maybe no issue for first testing (?) e. Can stop instantaneously f. Can also be done from shore or inland 4. The negative sides, comparing to wind a. Extra heat is supplied to the Arctic from the pyrolysis process (this needs to be balanced against the atmospheric SRM and CDR benefits) b. Much longer input biomass transport distances are needed than usually proposed for biochar facilities (but ship transport is low cost) c. Considerable staffing is needed for a terribly frigid environment (although plentiful CHP energy will be plentiful. Maybe low cost help encouraged by prison authorities, who might see these floating platfoms as equivalent to prisons for certain types of prisoners - with prisoners (volunteers only) motivated by greater freedom of action, some salary, repaying society, chance to learn new skills, etc. Alternatively, could be a low cost one-year service project rather than military. I have checked with one ethicist (S'OK if volunteer) and have calls in to two others skilled in prison matters. Low labor costs will be essential.) 5. The benefit for biochar development, independent of wind, is this Ice application's need for large amounts of electrical energy (possible from the gases) or a produced liquid, which can be available on demand (such as pumping mainly at night), as well as being a good CPH application. 6. Maybe there is a design class or PhD candidate who can do a quick analysis to see: a. how much the Flynn-8000 number of platforms can change with larger platforms with more available power and energy. b. how much the economics can be improved (if at all) over other SRM approaches c. whether there is any other geoengineerng approach supplying both SRM and CDR benefits d. how many decrepit cargo ships are available, at what cost for refitting. e. the benefit to cost ratio (if positive at all) in climate improvement terms f. the optimum added ice thickness to strive for (one meter? probably will increase over time until we start removing more CO2 each year than we add (2030?) g. the ability of ice breakers to arrive periodically (only in September?) to bring in new crew, biomass and provisions and take out the biofuels and char. 7. This is not a proposal - only a possible modification (needing a lot of work) of Prof. Flynn's note from several weeks ago. It is intended to have possibly improved economics, by adding carbon neutrality, carbon negativity, and other possible income streams, not available with an un-manned wind station. Any major issues left out? 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
[geo] Looking for researcher name and cite
List: I recently listened to an informative series of short videos from a UK University center on geoengineering (maybe add the word governance?). Perhaps the first presenter showed a graph saying he (his center?) felt that the world of geoengineering between mitigation and adaptation should be broken up into five parts, not the present two (CDR and SRM). I cannot now re-locate this site. Anyone recognize this description? 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/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Mitigation and Solar Radiation Management in Climate Change Policies by Vasiliki Manousi , Anastasios Xepapadeas :: SSRN
Andrew, Stephen cc list 1. Thanks to Andrew for alerting us to this paper. I think the best I have seen combining Policy, Geoengineering and Economics. At first, it looks exceedingly complex, but after decoding the (new-to-me) nomenclature, not bad. A well written paper. 2. Stephen - I concur with your statement. But wonder whether you include the CDR suite in your term CO2 reduction. They use the term mitigation - which seems to have been meant to include CDR. They said (p 3, para 2) Mitigation reduces emissions and the stock of GHGs, which allows a larger flow of outgoing radiation and eases the pressure on temperature to rise. Ron - Original Message - From: Stephen Salter To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Wed, 05 Jun 2013 10:07:37 - (UTC) Subject: Re: [geo] Mitigation and Solar Radiation Management in Climate Change Policies by Vasiliki Manousi , Anastasios Xepapadeas :: SSRN Hi All The word 'cloud' does not appear in this paper. One policy might be to do as much CO2 reduction as you possibly can and then use geoengineering to clean up the rest. Stephen On 05/06/2013 10:29, Andrew Lockley wrote: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id= 2273439 Mitigation and Solar Radiation Management in Climate Change Policies Vasiliki Manousi Anastasios Xepapadeas Abstract: We couple a spatially homogeneous energy balance climate model with an economic growth model which incorporates two potential policies against climate change: mitigation, which is the traditional policy, and geoengineering. We analyze the optimal policy mix of geoengineering and mitigation in both a cooperative and a noncooperative framework, in which we study open loop and feedback solutions. Our results suggests that greenhouse gas accumulation is relatively higher when geoengineering policies are undertaken, and that at noncooperative solutions incentives for geoengineering are relative stronger. A disruption of geoengineering efforts at a steady state will cause an upward jump in global temperature. Keywords: Climate Change, Mitigation, Geoengineering, Cooperation, Differential Game, Open Loop - Feedback Nash Equilibrium -- 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?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out . -- The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, with registration number SC005336. -- 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?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out . -- 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] [paper] Science of Geoengineering, in Annual Reviews of Earth and Planetary Sciences
Ken, cc list I thought your annual review piece was generally good and for most technologies, probably helpful. But I fail to understand your non-treatment of biochar. You only used the word once - in a Table. I think Annual Reviews lost a good many potential purchasers. There are many reasons to leave out a technology that more than a few would think warranted inclusion. Too small a future? Too large a future? Too many publications? Too few? Too controversial? Too complicated to analyze? Too unlike the others? Ran out of time? Someone dropped the ball? Wrong Annual Review? Best of all could be that Annual Reviews is planning a separate biochar chapter , but then someone dropped a different ball. I don't claim to be a disinterested bystander, but I have no financial interest in any biochar company. So, being biased, I may be wrong, when I hazard these guesstimates on the biochar industry, comparing to any (repeat any) of the CDR (or SRM) technologies you did cover. a. More annual technical peer reviewed papers b. More academic departments and more theses c. More investment. More by large energy companies. d. More conferences and larger number of papers at conferences e. A longer history of use f. More employees, largest company g. More current sales and users, more countries , faster growth rate h. More varied approaches and more energy aspects (end use sectors, physical forms) i. More local support chapters and groups Anyone care to trade numerical values on any of these for one covered by Ken? My answers (repeat guesstimates) mostly will come from www.biochar-internatonal.org Ken: I hope you can explain your rationale for ignoring biochar. I have to ask , since I am sure to be asked. Apologies. Ron - Original Message - From: Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 3:40:13 PM Subject: [geo] [paper] Science of Geoengineering, in Annual Reviews of Earth and Planetary Sciences This link goes through their porous paywall and gives anyone free access to the pdf: http://www.annualreviews.org/eprint/8NiUE6HXETbrWNj3ybct/full/10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105548 The Science of Geoengineering Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences Vol. 41: 231-256 (Volume publication date May 2013) DOI: 10.1146/annurev-earth-042711-105548 Ken Caldeira, 1 Govindasamy Bala, 2 and Long Cao 3 1 Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution for Science, Stanford, California 94305; email: kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu 2 Center for Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560 012, India 3 Department of Earth Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang 310027, China Abstract. Carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of coal, oil, and gas are increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. These increased concentrations cause additional energy to be retained in Earth's climate system, thus increasing Earth's temperature. Various methods have been proposed to prevent this temperature increase either by reflecting to space sunlight that would otherwise warm Earth or by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Such intentional alteration of planetary-scale processes has been termed geoengineering. The first category of geoengineering method, solar geoengineering (also known as solar radiation management, or SRM), raises novel global-scale governance and environmental issues. Some SRM approaches are thought to be low in cost, so the scale of SRM deployment will likely depend primarily on considerations of risk. The second category of geoengineering method, carbon dioxide removal (CDR), raises issues related primarily to scale, cost, effectiveness, and local environmental consequences. The scale of CDR deployment will likely depend primarily on cost. ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira Caldeira Lab is hiring postdoctoral researchers. http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_employment.html -- 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?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out . -- 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
Re: [geo] The War on Nature: Geoengineering and the Climate Crisis - EcoWatch: Cutting Edge Environmental News Service
Peter etal Thanks for the interjection - at least partially responding to me. To the best of my knowledge, your proposed method of albedo enhancement (url given below) has not been advanced on this list. I can't find it at AMEG. I called a wind-friend at NREL (where I once worked), who also had never heard of the concept.(and warned that the national wind program has done nothing at all similar, and that the engineering would be difficult).. Since you have brought arctic ice thickening to our attention and you seem to be the main proponent - a few questions: a. Have their been any other articles and/or research on the wind-salt-water-freezing-albedo part of your paper? b. Has anyone done any simple (non-wind) tests to see how the freezing of salt water from the top will work out? c. How much money is needed to do an Arctic test ASAP, with just a few units - perhaps at the few kW level? d. Do you think your proposed approach is potentially least cost? Potentially least controversial? Ron ps - of course hoping to hear from anyone - Original Message - From: Peter Flynn peter.fl...@ualberta.ca To: rongretlar...@comcast.net, geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Cc: andrew lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com Sent: Wednesday, June 5, 2013 10:40:26 PM Subject: RE: [geo] The War on Nature: Geoengineering and the Climate Crisis - EcoWatch: Cutting Edge Environmental News Service I hesitate to enter the charged discussion, but I will. Like many, I consider geoengineering a regrettable alternative to dealing with the source problem. And like many, I consider that the potential to deal realistically and effectively with the source problem, emissions of GHGs, is slim to nil, and hence we will get to the alternative. So as regards ice formation, we should be aware that one can enhance ice formation in the winter: the issue in the north is not an absence of cold in the winter, but rather a shortening of the season. Since ice formation is self-insulating, moving liquid water in contact with cold air will enhance the formation of ice. We had looked at this as regards the preliminary evidence of the weakening of the North Atlantic downwelling current, the companion of the Gulf Stream. I have attached a copy of the work that Jason (Songjian) Zhou and I did just to illustrate that enhancing ice thickness on the ocean, or ice cover, can be done, using the same technique that has been used to build ice bridges in northern settings. I don’t cite this as a panacea; we did our work to explore a contingency response. Regard, Peter Flynn Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D. Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers Department of Mechanical Engineering University of Alberta peter.fl...@ualberta.ca cell: 928 451 4455 From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto: geoengineering@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of Ron Sent: June-05-13 10:08 PM To: geoengineering Cc: andrew.lock...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [geo] The War on Nature: Geoengineering and the Climate Crisis – EcoWatch: Cutting Edge Environmental News Service List. Cc Andrew I have been fighting the folks at BiofuelWatch (BFW) since 2008. It was a great surprise to not see the word biochar in the following. But they are not dumb, the Arctic ice disappearance problem is much too urgent for much help from the biochar or other bio-CDR communities. Including biochar would have weakened their argument. How to respond? I t hink John Nissen or designee should ask this news outlet group for equal time. I don' t believe BFW has any alternative approach re ice disappearance, so they should be asked for their better alternative. There is no way they can claim expertise on this topic ( zero publications). Their claim that AMEG (and this list) are not fighting for zero fossil fuels is ludicrous. Why have they moved from the biofuels area? They are very close to the E.T.C. Group, and may have been asked to do this. We do not know much on their funding, so maybe pressure can be placed on funders if they can be found. Maybe they have a funder who wanted this. If anyone can reach Jim Hansen or Bill McKibben for a rebuttal statement, that would be ideal. I can imagine Al Gore being a help. They applaud Hansen here for talking about a disaster, but blast AMEG for very similar warning. I am pretty sure (needs checking) they are against Hansen's proposal for a new 100 Gt C in afforestation/reforestation (too much land) If David Archer is not accurately quoted, that could be a help. I know three biochar researchers incensed by the way they have been misquoted. They have a good point about the way biofuels have often been handled -with corrupt governments. But SRM and CDR approaches need not be tarred the same way. This corrupt government charge should not be as big a threat re Arctic ice, but watch out for assertions
Re: [geo] Nice but unrealistic carbon capture project?
Dr. D. and list I am not an expert in this area, but try to follow the subject closely - because it is a hugely important topic for biochar and you should get an answer. You asked below My guess is that many group members here might [think] this is among the least effective geo-engineering efforts. Am I wrong? My answer: we need more data. By no means least yet.. Googling found this Wiki statement (emphasis added): 'They grow at such a rate as to produce roughly 40 cubic feet (1.1 m 3 ) of wood each year, approximately equal to the volume of a 50-foot-tall tree one foot in diameter. [ 7 ] This makes them among the fastest growing organisms on Earth, in terms of annual increase in mass. This is encouraging but meaningless in CDR (NPP) terms until we know the associated tree age and land area. If the above hypothetical tree had unity density [barely floated] of about half carbon, we could say about 0.55 tonnes C/yr per tree. If there were 100 such trees per hectare (each occupying 100 sqm) or spaced about 10 meters apart, then we could say the NPP was about 55 tonnes C/ha-yr or about 5.5 kg C/sqm-yr. This would be astoundingly good. But could be off easily by a factor of10 if the 40 cu ft related to a 250 ft tall tree (maybe this growth statistic is for land with fewer than 10 trees per ha??). Anyone up on these numbers for giant sequoia? An actively managed planted forest might start off with 100 times as many trees per ha (one per sqm) - and slowly reduce the density to get the maximum annual dollar yield from the initial planting - the thinned little guys going to energy and biochar of course. There are numerous forestry experts who know this proper (maxmum profit) planting and thinning schedule for different species. The growth follows a sigmoid curve shape - so we need data on that as well. If the maximum growth period is 500 years off, that is not so good. Speaking of biochar, millions of seedlings are now finding better growth and economics with char replacing vermiculite or similar starter soil. Ron - Original Message - From: Dr D durb...@gmail.com To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2013 1:49:34 PM Subject: [geo] Nice but unrealistic carbon capture project? Instead of sharing a paper, below is a 5 min video from the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/video/2013/06/06/science/10002262388/reaching-for-the-sky.html The Archangel Project wants to take cuttings from giant trees (Sequoias), propagate them in the millions, and plant thousands of arces of them throughout the US (e.g. New England). The idea is to capture carbon and store if for thousands of years. My guess is that many group members here might this is among the least effective geo-engineering efforts. Am I wrong? -- 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?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out . -- 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Nice but unrealistic carbon capture project?
Andrew: Agreed on Net^2. It'll be quite a few years before we run out of good locations. I meant to get into the last message that we need to be thinking in billions, not millions, of new trees per year. One per capita would help a lot. Chinese schoolkids are planting I think 5 per year. Ron - Original Message - From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com To: Ron Larson rongretlar...@comcast.net Cc: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com, durbrow durb...@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2013 5:38:35 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Nice but unrealistic carbon capture project? Surely you also have to consider whatever vegetation your are replacing? It's the net increase in net primary productivity which matters A On Jun 7, 2013 12:33 AM, rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote: Dr. D.and list I am not an expert in this area, but try to follow the subject closely - because it is a hugely important topic for biochar and you should get an answer. You asked below My guess is that many group members here might [think] this is among the least effective geo-engineering efforts. Am I wrong? My answer: we need more data. By no means least yet.. Googling found this Wiki statement (emphasis added): 'They grow at such a rate as to produce roughly 40 cubic feet (1.1 m 3 ) of wood each year, approximately equal to the volume of a 50-foot-tall tree one foot in diameter. [ 7 ] This makes them among the fastest growing organisms on Earth, in terms of annual increase in mass. This is encouraging but meaningless in CDR (NPP) terms until we know the associated tree age and land area. If the above hypothetical tree had unity density [barely floated] of about half carbon, we could say about 0.55 tonnes C/yr per tree. If there were 100 such trees per hectare (each occupying 100 sqm) or spaced about 10 meters apart, then we could say the NPP was about 55 tonnes C/ha-yr or about 5.5 kg C/sqm-yr. This would be astoundingly good. But could be off easily by a factor of10 if the 40 cu ft related to a 250 ft tall tree (maybe this growth statistic is for land with fewer than 10 trees per ha??). Anyone up on these numbers for giant sequoia? An actively managed planted forest might start off with 100 times as many trees per ha (one per sqm) - and slowly reduce the density to get the maximum annual dollar yield from the initial planting - the thinned little guys going to energy and biochar of course. There are numerous forestry experts who know this proper (maxmum profit) planting and thinning schedule for different species. The growth follows a sigmoid curve shape - so we need data on that as well. If the maximum growth period is 500 years off, that is not so good. Speaking of biochar, millions of seedlings are now finding better growth and economics with char replacing vermiculite or similar starter soil. Ron From: Dr D durb...@gmail.com To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2013 1:49:34 PM Subject: [geo] Nice but unrealistic carbon capture project? Instead of sharing a paper, below is a 5 min video from the New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/video/2013/06/06/science/10002262388/reaching-for-the-sky.html The Archangel Project wants to take cuttings from giant trees (Sequoias), propagate them in the millions, and plant thousands of arces of them throughout the US (e.g. New England). The idea is to capture carbon and store if for thousands of years. My guess is that many group members here might this is among the least effective geo-engineering efforts. Am I wrong? -- 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?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out . -- 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?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out . -- 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Re: Meanwhile, in CDR news...
Greg, list and ccs 1. I am not the best person to respond on this challenge discussion, but I recommend going to this site for latest update: http://www.virginearth.com/ There were 11 finalists for the $25 million prize; three were biochar companies. I believe we are still within the 5 year window for announcing a winner.. 2. I found this quote on one biochar company site: Ideas are assessed by a panel of judges including Richard Branson, Al Gore, James E. Hansen, James Lovelock and Tim Flannery. All have been supportive of biochar to some extent (Lovelock used the term only at one point.) 3. Sir Branson also formed a companion group called the Carbon War Room (CWR) designed to help remove market barriers. Biochar was their first topical area. They dropped biochar after deciding (probably correctly) that the biochar industry was not far enough along for CWR help. I don't know any details, but beleve the bochar community felt let down. 4. I have not yet listened to all four videos by the individual (a friend, Lopa Brujnes) who led the CWR-biochar effort. Her first of four 15 minute videos is at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH8l51Y0s34 There is more on the two Branson efforts at www.biochar-international.org This IBI group apparently feels let down over the whole activity. I wonder if the other CDR types do also?. 5. If I had to bet on a likely overall winner from both a biochar and total prize standpoint it would be the (well-funded) group at www.coolplanet.com but they probably don't qualify, since they weren't part of the 11-finalist group (came along too late). Ron - Original Message - From: RAU greg gh...@sbcglobal.net To: oliver tickell oliver.tick...@kyoto2.org Cc: david appell david.app...@gmail.com, geoengineering@googlegroups.com, m2des...@cablespeed.com Sent: Monday, June 3, 2013 9:59:36 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Meanwhile, in CDR news... Thanks. Yes, lots of great ideas out there. Speaking of the Virgin Earth Challenge (apparently the only CDR game in town), what the heck happened to the prize? Did they quietly select a winner, split the money among finalists, or say sorry, no winner, thanks for all of the great ideas, we were just kidding.??? For all of the initial splash, the VEC seemed to end very somberly. Given the importance of the topic and Branson's apparent enthusiasm, why? -Greg From: Oliver Tickell oliver.tick...@kyoto2.org To: gh...@sbcglobal.net Cc: david.app...@gmail.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com; m2des...@cablespeed.com Sent: Mon, June 3, 2013 2:42:47 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Meanwhile, in CDR news... But why no mention of CDR by accelerated rock weathering (AGR)? This is one of the solutions selected by the Virgin Challenge - the one from Netherlands. And it is being promoted by Olaf Schuilling, who is a member of this Geoengineering Group. This is a low tech, low cost approach - which consists of mining olivine bearing rock, grinding it up to approx 0.1mm, and spreading it land / coast where it will completely weather away over a period of under 10 years, converting CO2 to bicarbonate in solution. All for ~$10/tCO2. Emissions for mining, transport, grinding, just a few % of the CO2 gain. So what's not to include about it? Oliver. On 02/06/2013 20:29, RAU greg wrote: Thanks, David, very nice review. Where our technology departs from the higher profile abiotic methods you discuss is: 1) expensively concentrated CO2 is not formed (or stored), 2) reactions occur at ambient T and P - exotic chemicals and conditions are avoided (so far), 3) excess ocean rather than excess air CO2 can be mitigated, avoiding the need for more complex air scrubbing technology. Why go to the added expense/effort of getting air CO2 into solution to then do chemistry when vast areas of the surface ocean are already supersaturated in CO2? Doing the chemistry there completely avoids the giant land footprint and energy required for air scrubbing that you mention, as well as avoids the need for molecular CO2 sequestration or use. Obviously, the safety of doing this in the ocean needs to be researched, but generating ocean alkalinity would seem an improvement over our current ocean acidification program. I'm not alone in my thinking; this builds on Kheshgi (1995), House et al. (2007), and Harvey (2008) among others. -Greg From: David Appell david.app...@gmail.com To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Cc: m2des...@cablespeed.com Sent: Sun, June 2, 2013 10:55:22 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Meanwhile, in CDR news... Mark: I have an article in this month's Physics World magazine that answers some of these questions: “Mopping Up Carbon,” Physics World, June 2013, pp. 23-27. http://www.davidappell.com/articles/PWJun13Appell-air_capture.pdf David On 6/2/2013 8:05 AM, Mark Massmann wrote: I'm wondering if anyone can respond to these questions: I could be missing this, but how long
Re: [geo] Rotman, CDR, and morality
Charles and list: 1. I don't think I misinterpreted the quote. I said below I believe one can't possibly get the ethics of either geoengineering or SRM correct if you believe CDR has this presumed dismal future . I am in perfect agreement with your sentence below: This is what led my co-authors and me to conclude that CDR and the most aggressive CO2 emission reductions possible are the only way to limit CO2 concentrations to ~350 ppm and anthropogenic warming to 2 degrees by the end of the century. 2. I have read your paper cited below , one sentence of which (like other sentences in your note below) reads: The problem with this approach is that climate warming from an elevated CO2 concentration is largely irreversible after only a few decades.8 where [8] is a paper by Solomon, whose irreversbility views we have discussed (and seem also to rely on doing no CDR - not that CDR won't work), I think we all should avoid sentences like this when your theme is the exact opposite. 3. So your paper looks only at one CDR approach, and never uses the word biochar. I hope you will talk to your associate at Cornell - Prof.Johannes Lehmann, the one single person I feel best understands the world of biochar. 4. Do you have specific views on biochar working or not working to get to 350 ppm? Ron - Original Message - From: Charles H. Greene c...@cornell.edu To: rongretlar...@comcast.net rongretlar...@comcast.net Cc: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, June 2, 2013 12:19:09 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Rotman, CDR, and morality Dear Ron: The quote is correct; however, you may be misinterpreting it. We are locked for approximately a thousand years into whatever temperature the climate system equilibrates at when the ocean has released its excess heat (the warming in the pipeline) to the atmosphere. If CO2 emissions halted entirely overnight, then atmospheric CO2 concentration would gradually decline and likely stabilize at somewhere just below ~350 ppm by the end of the century. In response, the global mean temperature would likely stabilize just below 2 degrees of anthropogenic warming by century's end. Of course, that's not going to happen because we are societally committed to CO2 emissions for quite some time into the future. This is what led my co-authors and me to conclude that CDR and the most aggressive CO2 emission reductions possible are the only way to limit CO2 concentrations to ~350 ppm and anthropogenic warming to 2 degrees by the end of the century. Greene, CH, BC Monger, and ME Huntley. 2010. Geoengineering: The Inescapable Truth of Getting to 350. Solutions 1(5):57-66. You can download the paper from my Research Gate site or ask me to send it to you. Regards. Chuck On Jun 2, 2013, at 4:21 AM, rongretlar...@comcast.net rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote: List 1. The subject of ethics and morality have been key to this list discussions, especially over the last week. .As I was further researching this list's discussion on this topic, I came on a short message string introduced by Andrew Lockley on April 11. Andrew, as is his welcome style, alerted us to a short review article of three books on ethics and geoengineering (by Broome, Hamilton, and Gardiner). The article appeared in the April MIT Technology Review, written by the Magazine's editor: David Rotman. The 6 short pages can be down loaded easily at http://www.technologyreview.com/review/513526/climate-change-the-moral-choices/ 2. Rotman's 3rd and 4th sentences read (emphasis added): Over the last few years, researchers have calculated that some of the resulting changes to the earth's climate, including increased temperature, are more persistent still: even if emissions are abruptly ended and carbon dioxide levels gradually drop, the temperature will stubbornly remain elevated for a thousand years or more. The earth's thermostat is essentially being turned up and there are no readily foreseeable ways to turn it back down; even risky geoengineering schemes would at best offset the higher temperatures only temporarily. 3. I have not yet read any of the three books, and Mr .Rotman may not be up on both the SRM and CDR parts of Geoengneering, but I believe one can't possibly get the ethics of either geoengineering or SRM correct if you believe CDR has this presumed dismal future . This does seem to conform to the quote I used last week re Prof. Hamilton's view of biochar's assumed future clmate/geoengineering insignificance. 4. I had not realized that the ethics profession could get the fundamentals so wrong - of huge importance to Jim Hansen and the 350.org groups. Or does the fault lie only with Mr. Rotman? Either way, large numbers have received a very disheartening (and I believe inaccurate) future climate message -one that helps only one side of geoengineering.. Ron -- You received this message because you are
Re: [geo] profile of me in San Francisco Chronicle today, discussion geoengineering in a broader context
Ken cc List: 1. Thanks for the leads - mostly related to ocean acidification - a prime ethics subject for those on this list mostly interested in CDR . 2. The information you supplied leads one to two short videos from two months ago,at: http://www.youtube.com/user/CarnegieGlobEcology/videos From these, one can gain a pretty good idea of how your experiment was being carried out . I recommend them to others. 3. But those videos (which you do well) were from February. Can you give a hint of what you later learned (scientifically)? Jana's answers leaves one in suspense. (Maybe create #3 soon?) 4. There must be many thousands of salt water aquaria around the world. Are any of these providing useful information on the impact of pH? 5. Before receiving your message below, I was preparing a short follow-up note (TBD) on this week's AEI 1 hr 40 minute meeting on SRM. I listened casually once, and decided to listen again, when I decided I had not once heard the words ocean acidification -the topic I should think would be of most importance when discussing SRM. Can you relate this recent Australian work to your work on SRM? Ron - Original Message - From: Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, June 2, 2013 3:09:22 PM Subject: [geo] profile of me in San Francisco Chronicle today, discussion geoengineering in a broader context Warning from climate science front lines http://www.sfchronicle.com/science/article/Warning-from-climate-science-front-lines-4569221.php?t=4f3395796547b02379 Moving geoengineering out from under dark shadows http://blog.sfgate.com/techchron/2013/06/01/moving-geoengineering-out-from-under-dark-shadows/ On the trail of global warming’s equally evil twin http://blog.sfgate.com/techchron/2013/06/01/on-the-trail-of-global-warmings-equally-evil-twin/ -- I happen to be in China now, and apparently Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Vimeo are all blocked (at least I can't get access to them from my hotel room). I never realized that these email groups can play a role in dissemination of information that the more up-to-date social media cannot play. ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira Caldeira Lab is hiring postdoctoral researchers. http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_employment.html Check out the profile of me on NPR's All Things Considered -- 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?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out . -- 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
[geo] Rotman, CDR, and morality
List 1. The subject of ethics and morality have been key to this list discussions, especially over the last week. .As I was further researching this list's discussion on this topic, I came on a short message string introduced by Andrew Lockley on April 11. Andrew, as is his welcome style, alerted us to a short review article of three books on ethics and geoengineering (by Broome, Hamilton, and Gardiner). The article appeared in the April MIT Technology Review, written by the Magazine's editor: David Rotman. The 6 short pages can be down loaded easily at http://www.technologyreview.com/review/513526/climate-change-the-moral-choices/ 2. Rotman's 3rd and 4th sentences read (emphasis added): Over the last few years, researchers have calculated that some of the resulting changes to the earth's climate, including increased temperature, are more persistent still: even if emissions are abruptly ended and carbon dioxide levels gradually drop, the temperature will stubbornly remain elevated for a thousand years or more. The earth's thermostat is essentially being turned up and there are no readily foreseeable ways to turn it back down; even risky geoengineering schemes would at best offset the higher temperatures only temporarily. 3. I have not yet read any of the three books, and Mr .Rotman may not be up on both the SRM and CDR parts of Geoengneering, but I believe one can't possibly get the ethics of either geoengineering or SRM correct if you believe CDR has this presumed dismal future . This does seem to conform to the quote I used last week re Prof. Hamilton's view of biochar's assumed future clmate/geoengineering insignificance. 4. I had not realized that the ethics profession could get the fundamentals so wrong - of huge importance to Jim Hansen and the 350.org groups. Or does the fault lie only with Mr. Rotman? Either way, large numbers have received a very disheartening (and I believe inaccurate) future climate message -one that helps only one side of geoengineering.. 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Opinion: Dreams we cannot afford, by Russ George — The Daily Climate
Fred, list and ccs 1. I support your efforts to put more list emphasis on HANPP. How about HANPPropriation? (Getting at the A twice for emphasis) But I am hoping to hear more about increasing GPP and NPP, so how about HAANPP, with the new added A meaning Augmentation, so we can also have HAANPPropriation , with no wasted syllables. 2. It was interesting to learn the historic (visual) reason for the Polo Club name that Dr. Seitz alerted us to. But liking the non-visual reason in Ken's last suggestion, how about: myopoecotopia (Alliteration (4 o's) being promoted by Joe Romm.) Ron - Original Message - From: Fred Zimmerman geoengineerin...@gmail.com To: Russell Seitz russellse...@gmail.com, gh...@sbcglobal.net, geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, May 25, 2013 7:05:38 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Opinion: Dreams we cannot afford, by Russ George — The Daily Climate Conserve isn't really right because we've been anthroforming Terra since the beginning of the Holocene -- 15 kya domestication of animals and dogs, 12 kya mass extinctions, 8 kya rice/methane if you believe William Ruddiman, 3000 ya agriculture, deforestation of Greece, 1750 industrial era ..;.For better or worse Holocene == conserve. I'd like to find a word that conveys human appropriation of net primary productivity -- HANPPoforming? --- Fred Zimmerman Geoengineering IT! Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080 On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 8:08 PM, Russell Seitz russellse...@gmail.com wrote: Ken, I suspect the word you are looking for is conserve. Anthroform is what God does to dust in Genesis , anda href= http://www.myopiapolo.org the myopeconforms hereabouts/a are already a fairly green lot. On Saturday, May 25, 2013 5:23:28 PM UTC-4, Ken Caldeira wrote: blockquote Maybe the word is anthroform --.transforming the Earth to better meet human needs. This could perhaps be contrasted with naturaform -- transforming the Earth to better meet the needs of existing natural systems. These both could be contrasted with our current policy: myopeconoform -- transforming the Earth as a consequence of efforts to maximize short-term economic objectives. /blockquote -- 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?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out . -- 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Opposition to Geoengineering: There’s No Place Like H.O.M.E. (Opinion Article) | Geoengineering Our Climate?
Andrew: Thanks for spotting this message about ETC and HOME. From my readings, they are as big a problem for biochar (and presumably all geo technologies) as exist. Decision X/33, para 8 (w): “Ensure, in line and consistent with decision IX/16 C, on ocean fertilization and biodiversity and climate change, in the absence of science based, global, transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanisms for geo-engineering, and in accordance with the precautionary approach and Article 14 of the Convention, that no climate-related geo-engineering activities** that may affect biodiversity take place, until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks for the environment and biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural impacts, with the exception of small scale scientific research studies that would be conducted in a controlled setting in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, and only if they are justified by the need to gather specific scientific data and are subject to a thorough prior assessment of the potential impacts on the environment;” ** (footnote to decision X/33 para 8 (w): Without prejudice to future deliberations on the definition of geo-engineering activities, understanding that any technologies that deliberately reduce solar insolation or increase carbon sequestration from the atmosphere on a large scale that may affect biodiversity (excluding carbon capture and storage from fossil fuels when it captures carbon dioxide before it is released into the atmosphere) should be considered as forms of geo-engineering which are relevant to the Convention on Biological Diversity until a more precise definition can be developed. It is noted that solar insolation is defined as a measure of solar radiation energy received on a given surface area in a given hour and that carbon sequestration is defined as the process of increasing the carbon content of a reservoir/pool other than the atmosphere. Takes note of the report on the impacts of climate related geoengineering on biological diversity (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/16/INF/28), the study on the regulatory framework for climate-related geoengineering relevant to the Convention on Biological Diversity (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/16/INF/29) and the overview of the views and experiences of indigenous and local communities and stakeholders (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/16/INF/30); From #29 on regulation (p13) Climate-related Geoengineering: a deliberate intervention in the planetary environment of a nature and scale intended to counteract anthropogenic climate change and/or its impacts through, inter alia, solar radiation management or removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. 9. The group considered that the above definitions would include both solar radiation management (SRM) and carbon dioxide removal (CDR) techniques. It should be noted, however, that opinions differ on the inclusion or exclusion of large scale mitigation activities such as afforestation, reforestation and biochar. p14 11. Activities such as afforestation, reforestation or terrestrial biomass production , on the other hand, may be governed primarily through domestic institutions . google for UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/16/INF/28 (a 2012 report of 83 pp) From p Here, techniques are considered as CDR geoengineering if carried out for the purpose of carbon removal and storage, and deployed (collectively) at sufficient scale to achieve a significant climatic effect. Biomass production on previously degraded areas, if wellmanaged, may deliver biodiversity benefits; however, even here, greater benefits in terms of both biodiversity and net greenhouse gas reductions may be achieved through restoration of natural habitats on these lands 343. - Original Message - From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 4:58:15 PM Subject: [geo] Opposition to Geoengineering: There’s No Place Like H.O.M.E. (Opinion Article) | Geoengineering Our Climate? http://geoengineeringourclimate.com/2013/05/07/opposition-to-geoengineering-theres-no-place-like-h-o-m-e-opinion-article/ Opposition to Geoengineering: There’s No Place Like H.O.M.E. In April 2010, the World Peoples’ Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, held in Cochabamba, Bolivia, brought together more than 25,000 campesinos, teachers, students, engineers, activists, diplomats, elders and ordinary folk to discuss how best to minimize the impacts of global warming and to respond to the failure of negotiations at the UN Framework Climate on Climate Change to bring about reductions in global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Seventeen working groups contributed to a Peoples Agreement, which explicitly rejected geoengineering as a “false solution” to climate change.[1] From
Re: [geo] Opposition to Geoengineering: There’s No Place Like H.O.M.E. (Opinion Article) | Geoengineering Our Climate?
Andrew etal: 1. Apologies. Not sure how the last message got out prematurely. Scratch that in favor of this one. Apologies also for this message length, but it is mostly about at least 4 new CBD documents and the important damper that the CBD has placed on geoengineering RD not about ETC and HOME. 2. Andrew: Thanks for your message yesterday about ETC and HOME. From my readings, these groups are as big a problem for biochar (and presumably all geo technologies) as exist. The material you reprinted below (now snipped) from the URL you gave is incomplete - missing the notes and citations, so some may benefit, as I did, from going to the full text at the cite given below. The second footnote in the original from ETC has a sentence on definitions that is a little helpful (because there is a butcan be escape clause) for some on this list (Emphasis added): 'Accordingly, we consider techniques such as “solar radiation management” to be geoengineering, but biochar and other carbon sequestration techniques can be as well, depending on the scale and nature of their application. I think ETC has given an important allowance here for the many biochar experiments that are now ongoing. I had thought they might be arguing against this escape clause (as done in their earlier documents on geoengineering, illogically), so this little bit was surprising. 3. I also viewed there, the 4 minute video of Jeff Tollefson (Reporter for Nature; asked four reasonable questions) interviewing ETC's Jim Thomas earlier this month. There was essentially no discussion of the 2010 CBD printed material you have quoted. The fourth and last question at the 2 minute mark was on CDR, with Thomas also mentioning biochar, but not as favorably as above. I guess Thomas is thinking that biomass will leave the South with treeless regions left behind. I agree with his emphasis on the South, but see it happening differently, with money from the North being supplied mostly to produce liquid fuels for worldwide consumption, but certainly some liquids staying behind, but (for cost miniimization reasons) putting biochar in the ground to the South's great soil-improvement benefit. Thomas correctly points out that the CDR decision should be entirely in the hands of the South. Thomas was not as strong as the above ETC footnote 2 on biochar, but the term scale was still present in his rersponse. 4. As many list members know, the important material on geoengineering coming from the 2010 CBD COP-10 is in its Article 33 to be found by googling for UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/X/33. On page 5, in section 8w (and ts footnote 2) are the definitions for SRM and CDR. I now conclude from these that biochar can be both tested and utilized almost anywhere without violating this UN endorsed prohibition. This is because of a. the scale issue b. biochar CBD impacts stays local, c. the main reason for most applications today is for soil improvement, not for a climate reason. d. many tests are scientific (which are explicitly allowed) and science needs more regular field applications. e. biodiversity impacts will occur; but on balance these have been and will be positive. I am not certain that this same freedom now applies to any other CDR approach except BECCS and afforestation (which may not be considered CDR - see below). I used the term almost above. I can agree that there should be an international framework for biochar well before the annual sequestration by biochar reaches about a tenth of a wedge (or about 100 million tons C/year). This is at least 10 or 15 years away. Do any list members disagree with this personal conclusion about how biochar users should interpret the present Article 33 international limitations on geoengineering? 5. Last October there was a COP11 update and reaffirmation of the 2010 COP10 decisions, that I don't recall this list talking about. These can be found by googling for UNEP/CBD/COP/DEC/XI/20. What I found most interesting was reference to a new 83 page UNEP SBSTTA report on all the geoengineering approaches. (google for UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/16/INF/28) . For biochar there were 14 citations (#'s 348-361). Unfortunately only one was as recent as 2011, and the language was less positive than I feel appropriate, but is an improvement over previous such CBD reports. BECCs had 2 citations. Artificial trees had 25 6. There were another two similar parallel UNEP SBSTTA documents on regulatory and indigenous people topics- found by googlng for UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/16/INF/29 and UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/16/INF/30. The one on regulation had this surprising but welcome sentence on p 13 relating biochar to mitigation and afforestation: It should be noted, however, that opinions differ on the inclusion or exclusion of large scale mitigation activities such as afforestation, reforestation and biochar. 7. I apologize for concentrating on biochar. I bring up most of the above in the belief that
Re: [geo] German Priority Program on CE, kick-off meeting Berlin 3 June
Prof. Oschlies etal I have visited your Geomar site and am impressed by that group's work, which has done a lot with nitrogen, marine and biology topics. It is not clear from what I could find there whether the CDR part of geoengineering (or climate engineering) will also be part of this new risk analysis. This is to hope it is - especially for the biological side such as BECCS, biochar, and your own group's efforts with ocean biomass. Ron - Original Message - From: aoschlies aoschl...@geomar.de To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Cc: aoschl...@geomar.de, Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com, ubern...@geomar.de Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 4:13:19 AM Subject: Re: [geo] German Priority Program on CE, kick-off meeting Berlin 3 June Many thanks, very helpful an important point! The inherent context of the program is that climate change is happening, model simulations are based on various RCP scenarios, and several projects will explicitly investigate the comparative risks/benefits of emission cuts, business-as-usual and potential climate engineering efforts (e.g. Comparative assessment of potential impacts, side-effects and uncertainties of CE measures and emission-reduction efforts and Contextualizing Climate Engineering and Mitigation: Complement, Substitute or Illusion?). Still, it's very useful to clearly lay out the options, remind ourselves that we cannot do nothing and aim for a transparent risk-risk analysis. I'll make sure that we communicate this better. Best, -Andreas Oschlies Am Freitag, 24. Mai 2013 00:29:06 UTC+2 schrieb Mike MacCracken: Again, I can only say that I hope the context for the study is that climate change is happening and leading to/projected to lead to very serious consequences, all so serious that the recommendation is that all countries completely get off of fossil fuels that supply 80+% of the world's energy. From the titles of the projects, it sounds as if the analysis will be done absent the context, which would make very little sense and be of quite limited use. What is needed is a comparative risk analysis: global warming with and without climate engineering. Mike MacCracken On 5/23/13 5:28 PM, aoschlies wrote: A new Priority Program on the assessment of climate engineering is funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG): „Climate Engineering: Risks, Challenges, Opportunities?“ (SPP 1689) – coordinated by Andreas Oschlies, GEOMAR, Kiel. Its first 3-year phase (2012-2015) is funded with about 5 Mio Euro. The kick-off meeting will take place in Berlin 3rd of June 2013 (http://www.spp-climate-engineering.de/auftaktveranstaltung-podiumsdiskussion. html). The aim of the Priority Program is to help constraining the significant uncertainties in our current understanding of the environmental, societal and political risks, challenges and possible opportunities of climate engineering. This will help to enable a responsible decision-making about CE. Due to the complexity of the topic we will conduct our assessment in a broad interdisciplinary research team. A crucial concern of the Priority Program is to involve the general public and carry out the research in a transparent manner. The first phase oft the program will include the following subprojects: • „How to Meet a Global Challenge? Climate Engineering at the Science-Policy Nexus: Contested Understandings of Responsible Research and Governance “ - Barben (RWTH Aachen), Janich (TU Darmstadt) • „Arguing about CE: Towards a Comprehensive Ethical Analysis of an Ongoing Debate“ – Betz (KIT), Ott (CAU Kiel), Visbeck (GEOMAR) • „Comparative assessment of potential impacts, side-effects and uncertainties of CE measures and emission-reduction efforts (ComparCE)“, Ilyina (MPI Hamburg), Oschlies (GEOMAR), Pongratz (MPI Hamburg), Schmidt (MPI Hamburg) • „Climate Engineering Impacts: Between Reliability and Liability (CEIBRAL)“, Carrier (Uni Bielefeld), Goeschl (Uni Heidelberg), Proelß (Uni Tier), Schmidt (MPI Hamburg) • „Fingerprints analysis of extreme events caused by stratospheric sulfur injections (FASSI)“, Cubasch (FU Berlin) • „Contextualizing Climate Engineering and Mitigation: Complement, Substitute or Illusion? (CEMICS) “, Edenhofer (PIK), Hartmann (Uni Hamburg), Held (Uni Hamburg), Lawrence (IASS) • „Climate Engineering on Land: Potentials and side-effects of afforestation and biomass plantations as instruments for Carbon Extraction (CE-LAND) “, Gerten (PIK), Kracher (MPI Hamburg), Lucht (PIK), Pongratz (MPI Hamburg) • „Learning about cloud brightening under risk and uncertainty: Whether, when and how to do field experiments (LEAC)“, Quaas (Uni Leipzig), Quaas (CAU Kiel) The DFG
Re: [geo] German Priority Program on CE, kick-off meeting Berlin 3 June
Andreas: cc list Thanks for the added information. I can support your 3 choices as being logical. Mostly you will be disappointing the cloud whitening and biochar proponents (basing this on my perception of the numbers of active proponents or opponents of the various geoengineering options). I personally try to couple biochar to afforestation, so maybe you will be developing risks that we can appropriate (or reduce through the energy production and soil improvement aspects of biochar). Again, thanks for undertaking this risk study, whose results I look forward to. Ron - Original Message - From: aoschlies aoschl...@geomar.de To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Cc: aoschl...@geomar.de, Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com, ubern...@geomar.de Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 9:12:32 AM Subject: Re: [geo] German Priority Program on CE, kick-off meeting Berlin 3 June Thanks Ron, CDR will be considered as well. To make the work load more manageable, we plan -in a first phase- to primarily investigate afforestation, ocean alkalinization and atmospheric aerosol injection. This initial selection of CE schemes was made in an attempt to cover a wide range of time and space scales, effectivities and risks, as well as social, cultural, political, legal and ethical aspects. Other schemes will be considered whenever possible, as the ultimate goal will be a comprehensive assessment. Best regards, -Andreas Am Freitag, 24. Mai 2013 16:42:49 UTC+2 schrieb Ron: Prof. Oschlies etal I have visited your Geomar site and am impressed by that group's work, which has done a lot with nitrogen, marine and biology topics. It is not clear from what I could find there whether the CDR part of geoengineering (or climate engineering) will also be part of this new risk analysis. This is to hope it is - especially for the biological side such as BECCS, biochar, and your own group's efforts with ocean biomass. Ron From: aoschlies To: geoengi...@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, May 24, 2013 4:13:19 AM Subject: Re: [geo] German Priority Program on CE, kick-off meeting Berlin 3 June Many thanks, very helpful an important point! The inherent context of the program is that climate change is happening, model simulations are based on various RCP scenarios, and several projects will explicitly investigate the comparative risks/benefits of emission cuts, business-as-usual and potential climate engineering efforts (e.g. Comparative assessment of potential impacts, side-effects and uncertainties of CE measures and emission-reduction efforts and Contextualizing Climate Engineering and Mitigation: Complement, Substitute or Illusion?). Still, it's very useful to clearly lay out the options, remind ourselves that we cannot do nothing and aim for a transparent risk-risk analysis. I'll make sure that we communicate this better. Best, -Andreas Oschlies Am Freitag, 24. Mai 2013 00:29:06 UTC+2 schrieb Mike MacCracken: Again, I can only say that I hope the context for the study is that climate change is happening and leading to/projected to lead to very serious consequences, all so serious that the recommendation is that all countries completely get off of fossil fuels that supply 80+% of the world's energy. From the titles of the projects, it sounds as if the analysis will be done absent the context, which would make very little sense and be of quite limited use. What is needed is a comparative risk analysis: global warming with and without climate engineering. Mike MacCracken On 5/23/13 5:28 PM, aoschlies wrote: A new Priority Program on the assessment of climate engineering is funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG): „Climate Engineering: Risks, Challenges, Opportunities?“ (SPP 1689) – coordinated by Andreas Oschlies, GEOMAR, Kiel. Its first 3-year phase (2012-2015) is funded with about 5 Mio Euro. The kick-off meeting will take place in Berlin 3rd of June 2013 (http://www.spp-climate-engineering.de/auftaktveranstaltung-podiumsdiskussion. html). The aim of the Priority Program is to help constraining the significant uncertainties in our current understanding of the environmental, societal and political risks, challenges and possible opportunities of climate engineering. This will help to enable a responsible decision-making about CE. Due to the complexity of the topic we will conduct our assessment in a broad interdisciplinary research team. A crucial concern of the Priority Program is to involve the general public and carry out the research in a transparent manner. The first phase oft the program will include the following subprojects: • „How to Meet a Global Challenge? Climate Engineering at the
Re: [geo] Carbon dioxide hits a new high, but geo-engineering won’t help - Steve Sherwood
List and 3 ccs : I just came across today this 2 minute video that addresses (demolishes?):the constant recent temperature argument http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_0JZRIHFtk I don't have the background to know if the modifications were done correctly, but there must be many on this list who could comment. Does such a modified (now non-flat) experimental temperature data line say anything about the capabilities of climate modelers and/or about climate sensitivity? Ron - Original Message - From: euggor...@comcast.net To: em...@lewis-brown.net Cc: andrew lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com, geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 10:53:05 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Carbon dioxide hits a new high, but geo-engineering won’t help - Steve Sherwood Emily: Good point. It is also true that at 400 ppm the global temperature has not increased by several degrees as it did way back (temperature units not given) yet 3-5 million years ago the same concentration presumably produced a much larger temperature increase if the units are Celsius. So there is an inconsistency. The basic problem is that it is not yet clear how the global temperature increase and the CO2 concentration increase track and in fact the the tracking constant for current CO2 warming seems to vary with time although few doubt there is a monotonic relationship; i.e.. they both go up but not in step and accurate prediction may prove to be well into the future. From current data CO2 increase would appear to not be the only temperature driver. --gene - Original Message - From: Emily L-B em...@lewis-brown.net To: andrew lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com, geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 9:26:45 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Carbon dioxide hits a new high, but geo-engineering won’t help - Steve Sherwood I find it hard to read past a sentence when it is fundamentally flawed: the word 'instead' should read 'as well as'! 'Instead of reducing carbon emissions, let’s tinker' How frustrating! Best wishes all, Emily Sent from my BlackBerry -Original Message- From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com Sender: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 14:00:24 To: geoengineeringgeoengineering@googlegroups.com Reply-To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com Subject: [geo] Carbon dioxide hits a new high, but geo-engineering won’t help - Steve Sherwood http://theconversation.com/carbon-dioxide-hits-a-new-high-but-geo-engineering-wont-help-13840 Carbon dioxide hits a new high, but geo-engineering won’t help Steve Sherwood Director, Climate Change Research Centre at University of New South Wales This week, carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere finally crossed the 400 parts-per-million mark. The last time that happened was 3-5 million years ago during the Pliocene epoch, several million years before the evolution of modern humans. During this period the planet was 3-4 degrees warmer and sea levels 5-40m higher than today. Now, however, our activities are adding this gas hundreds or thousands of times faster than the natural sources that caused climate to change over Earth’s history. The concentration is measured at the Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii, and is averaged on a daily, weekly and monthly basis. CO2 has increased since 1800 from under 300ppm, and has rapidly increased since 1950. So what should we be doing about this? One idea is starting to get a lot of attention. Instead of reducing carbon emissions, let’s tinker with the system to cool the planet off – a type of geo-engineering. For example, we might be able to lower the temperature of the planet by several degrees by flying a small fleet of aircraft in the stratosphere, spraying sulphur-containing gases. This would form a mist that reflects some sunlight back to space – maybe enough to offset many decades' worth of greenhouse gas emissions, at least as far as the global temperature is concerned. If only it were that simple. Geo-engineering is not a miracle cure for climate change. It is more like a tourniquet. It may save the patient’s life as a last option, but that life will never be the same. Doesn’t CO2 just heat things up? Recent studies, including this one published last week, and to which I contributed, show that carbon dioxide from fossil fuels would alter our world in ways that have nothing to do with global warming at the earth’s surface. Carbon dioxide affects climate by itself, and without its warming influence. Sound strange? CO2 does this by interfering with natural energy flows within the atmosphere. This in turn affects how the air circulates, and shifts rainfall patterns. It also reduces total global precipitation. While the overall change in precipitation is less than that caused by global warming, the regional shifts in precipitation are comparable. In short, some areas
Re: [geo] Why geoengineering is not ‘global public good’, and why it's ethically misleading to frame it as one
Alan cc list and Emily Shucks. I agree with you about the SRM form of geo not being mitigation. But I was hoping that this list might agree that the mitigation term reducing could/should be interpreted broadly enough to include removing. The reason to not do so is what? Ron - Original Message - From: Alan Robock rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu To: em...@lewis-brown.net Cc: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2013 11:19:27 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Why geoengineering is not ‘global public good’, and why it's ethically misleading to frame it as one Dear Emily, IPCC has used standard definitions of these terms for decades. They are jargon, but the community accepts these definitions, rather than a broader dictionary definition. Mitigation means reducing emissions that cause global warming. Alan Robock Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor Editor, Reviews of Geophysics Director, Meteorology Undergraduate Program Associate Director, Center for Environmental Prediction Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751 Rutgers University Fax: +1-732-932-8644 14 College Farm Road E-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551 USA http://envsci.rutgers.edu/~robock http://twitter.com/AlanRobock On 5/11/2013 11:54 AM, Emily L-B wrote: Hi I would call SRM 'mitigation' (ie it reduces the Earth's temp from ghg pollution) like double glazing mitigates noise pollution from a motorway. Neither address the source of the problem, but they mitigate one of the problems. It could be called Symptom mitigation. CDR is also mitigation - reducing the pollution directly once emitted. Reducing emissions (what NGOs call mitigation) is mitigating the cause of the pollution. Mitigating climate impacts, indirect impacts and transboundary impacts on fauna and flora are a legal duty for any country with legislation like NEPA in the USA and the EIA directive in the EU. Analogous legislation exists elsewhere too. Should we be litigating any company with big projects covered by theses and countries not complying? Any lawyers on the list? Best wishes, Emily. Sent from my BlackBerry From: Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu Sender: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Date: Sat, 11 May 2013 08:26:37 -0700 To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com ReplyTo: kcalde...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [geo] Why geoengineering is not ‘global public good’, and why it's ethically misleading to frame it as one The definition of a pure public good in this paper is: First, a pure public good is a good that satisfies two conditions. It is nonrival: one person’s consumption of the good does not inhibit another person’s consumption. It is also nonexcludable: once it is available to some, others cannot be prevented from consuming it. Gardiner argues that we already know that everyone cannot benefit from solar geoengineering. This seems to be an empirical claim that is possibly true but not well-supported by quantitative analysis. It is often said that there will be winners and losers but that is a claim that has not been established. In most analyses based on commonly-used metrics of cost, everyone benefits by some level of solar geoengineering [cf. RIcke et al, attached]. Gardiner also imagines scenarios of coercion which, while possible are merely speculation. It may be premature to assert that we solar geoengineering is a public good, but it also seems premature to assert that it is not. On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 12:55 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: blockquote Why geoengineering is not ‘global public good’, and why it's ethically misleading to frame it as one http://t.co/istDiUqRoA Abstract In early policy work, climate engineering is often described as a global public good. This paper argues that the paradigm example of geoengineering—stratospheric sulfate injection (hereafter ‘SSI’)—does not fit the canonical technical definition of a global public good, and that more relaxed versions are unhelpful. More importantly, it claims that, regardless of the technicalities, the public good framing is seriously misleading, in part because it arbitrarily marginalizes ethical concerns. Both points suggest that more clarity is needed about the aims of geoengineering policy—and especially governance—and that this requires special attention to ethics. -- 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?hl=en . For more options, visit
Re: [geo] SECURITY UPDATE : Chemtrails/conspiracy rally planned for 'Hack the Sky' Caldeira talk.
Greg etal Thanks for the report. Three areas of questions 1. The message below yours by Vivian Warkentin only uses the term geoengineering - never SRM and CDR. How well did Hamilton and Caldeira explain the differences and only use the more specific meanings of all three? Same for audience - if questions were part of the program? 2. You use the term climate manipulation below. Was that term used and is it the same as geoengineering. Would this assembled group last night have voted to preclude RD on all CDR (and especially afforestation and biochar)? 3. Do you feel the anti-geoengineering folk had any minds changed over anything said? Ron - Original Message - From: RAU greg gh...@sbcglobal.net To: andrew lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com, geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@gmail.com Sent: Thursday, May 9, 2013 11:50:52 PM Subject: Re: [geo] SECURITY UPDATE : Chemtrails/conspiracy rally planned for 'Hack the Sky' Caldeira talk. Thanks for the warning, Andrew, but I risked going anyway without my body guards, and glad I did. The chem trail folks were indeed there and at times voiced their agitation over perceived major sky hacking already ongoing, but neither Ken nor Clive accommodated their fears. I think the debate really boiled down to whether or not humans can be trusted with researching and managing climate manipulation. Clive's view seems to be no. On the other hand, he made a startling prediction that, given the relatively low cost, he anticipated that SRM will be done in 30-40 years by one or more developing countries desperate to counter the climate change wreaked on them by the developed world's CO2. That seems an admission that more conventional actions won't work by then, and argues that in the meantime nations must come together to scientifically evaluate whether or not SRM is a viable, safe option before rogue states take matters into their own hands. Ken did a good job in arguing for a rational, open evaluation of the technology and in defusing the Dr. Strangelove persona that the chemtrailers were expecting. Anyway, I think it was an informative evening for the audience, and Earth Island Institute is to be commended for bravely hosting discussion on this important topic. It was nearly a full house; I'd say there were 90 people in attendance. Anyone else from this list? Greg From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com; Ken Caldeira kcalde...@gmail.com Sent: Mon, May 6, 2013 12:47:46 AM Subject: [geo] SECURITY UPDATE : Chemtrails/conspiracy rally planned for 'Hack the Sky' Caldeira talk. Poster's note : see bottom of below piece for info on rally. Suggest that any well known researchers avoid the area. May be worth asking police to attend. I would advise searching audience for concealed arms before allowing entry. http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2013-05-03/article/41048?headline=Hack-the-Sky---Vivian-Warkentin Public Comment New: Hack the Sky? Vivian Warkentin Sunday May 05, 2013 - 05:54:00 PM On May 9th, 7:00PM at the Brower Center, 2150 Allston way in Berkeley, corporate, billionaire- backed geoengineer, Ken Caldiera will be laying out the scientists' plans to mitigate global warming by blocking sunlight from the earth with chemical jet aerosols, such as sulphur dioxide and aluminum oxide dust. Earth Island Institute, the sponsor of this debate, is calling the event, Hack the Sky? An ethicist, not a scientist, has been chosen to debate Caldiera. Is the Earth Island Institute telling us there are no scientific arguments against this scheme? Arguments like: These chemical dusts will fall to earth to be absorbed and breathed by humans and all living things. The sun gives the earth life. Sunlight is necessary for plants to perform photosynthesis which takes carbon out of the atmosphere. The sun is the source of vitamin D required for human health. I for one, would like to hear from some forestry scientists, soil scientists, ocean scientists, biologists, botanists, entomologists, and non corporate atmospheric scientists. It is time for those who truly care about the environment to question blind trust in scientists and for that matter established environmental organizations. Science at our Universities is sponsored and directed by corporations now. Corporations have discovered that the best way to control environmentalists is to fund them. It seems that the neo environmentalists are running the environmental wing of the global war on terror, scaring us into all sorts of banker, developer, corporation, scientist enriching schemes ala disaster capitalism. I know there are plenty of well meaning caring people working with these groups, but has fear numbed their critical thinking? Geoengineering is massive pollution of the earth and it's inhabitants, and nothing less than the corporate scientific
Re: [geo] Geoengineering Africa’s Climate Change
Stephen: cc list There is at least one CDR approach taking some CDR action now in Africa: Biochar. I just found 262 Africa citations and more than 100 for Africa policy at www,biochar-international .org Unfortunately, I had great difficulty with the search engine until I logged in as a member. But it seemed the search engine was OK for the first page. So if you narrow the search (say by country), and do so sequentially with different topics, you may find something helpful. If you are not successful (as a non-member), perhaps I (as a member) can do some limited searching at that site to help you. Your PPt seemed to be emphasizing soil issues, where biochar might be particularly helpful. Ron - Original Message - From: Stephen step...@trpns.com To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 1:14:18 PM Subject: [geo] Geoengineering Africa’s Climate Change Geoengineering would have been more interesting, if it is artificial solution to common environmental issues, such as floods, erosions, drought, blizzards, avalanche, storms, etc. But Geoengineering is not. Geoengineering is directed at reducing factors responsible for some of these extreme conditions – Global Warming. Geoengineering, a phenomenon used to describe sets of technologies to reduce solar radiation reaching or absorbed by the earth and technologies to remove carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, is seen a lesser option – known – to manage global warming. Geoengineering has possibilities and risks, and gets introduced to the rest of the world by scientists, policy makers and interest groups. Geoengineering aims at instrumental factors for global warming, which is intense solar radiation and carbon dioxide – an abundant greenhouse gas. Geoengineering doesn’t go after the ultimate effects of global warming, as mentioned above, making the subject and its hard technologies strange – to many who have heard about it. The weirdness of geoengineering also extends to the interdependence of its outcome on territories aside the territory of deployment. It could cause droughts, deluge, avalanche, etc. in other places and may lead to conflict if no agreement was made before proceeding with such. Geoengineering has been measured with possibility for solutions, but there are no real-world tests to prove, and chances for reversal are slim, should things go wrong. If geoengineering is deployed for global benefit, it would favor some continents and may cause issues in others. Affected continents may include the developing world, putting them in more trouble. Take Africa, a continent dubbed as most affected for climate change that, clamors in international meetings for action, may suffer enormous consequences – for geoengineering, if deployed. Africa wants geoengineering – the kind that’ll attack the effects of extreme weather – not the causes. Africa has its changing climate, and its developmental challenges. Africa seeks assistance, but received funds do not match demands. Innovation and research that would be useful as solutions to Africa’s environmental issues are scarce. And in Africa, especially for governments, resources aren’t abundant. These makes Africa special amongst continents. Geoengineering meetings have been held twice in Africa, but there have been several climate change meetings. Discussions – regarding these – have not changed but time and opportunities ahead should not follow similar paths. Africa should evolve itself into technology design, development and deployment, with the academe at the fore, courting foundations or financial houses to bankroll the social business initiatives. Initiatives that would control floods, erosion, and find realistic ways out during drought, harmattan, etc. Africa should also be assisted by international organizations for networking, knowledge sharing, research, etc. Geoengineering already has some might, its technologies are insightful and can be useful to inspire technologies that would aim at the immediate effects of climate change – especially in Africa. Technology to Africa – is a great sell, seen in mobile and growing internet penetration around the continent. Africa is open to great technologies, solutions and innovation, and developing a culture of pioneering stuff locally. Geoengineering Africa’s Climate Change, the attached draft note that looks at Africa, geoengineering and climate change, details how Africa can seek technologies for environment solutions. -- 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?hl=en. For more options, visit
Re: [geo] If We Could Fix Climate Change With a Flick of a Switch, Will It be More Palatable to Conservatives? | Earth Island Journal
Andrew and list (adding Ken C) Thanks for the alert on this new article by Jason Mark. 1. An important event tomorrow (Thursday) evening is hidden at the same Earth Island site - a geoengineering debate between Dr. Ken Caldeira and Dr. Clive Hamilton. There is a $10 charge to attend. It didn't seem that this will also be available live through video, so somebody please alert us if this will be broadcast. I hope someone in the Bay area other than Ken can attend, take notes, and report the areas of agreement and disagreements - preferably on both parts of geoengneering. 2. Like the last one of Mr. Mark's articles you alerted us to (in 2012) - I am afraid that the words geoengineering, SRM, and CDR are again all mixed up together in this report (given below) on Dr. Kahan's study. I again have no idea if Mr. Mark is ever attributing anything to any CDR approach. I think he is only interested in SRM, although only the term geoengineering is used. (as also in the Kahan study). 3. Has anybody ever seen anything like the Kahan study - which might address only perceptions of the CDR technologies? I don't think any of the articles in the recent Climatic Change issue on CDR topics, edited by Massimo Tavon and Robert Socolow, cover this, do they?. Ron - Original Message - From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, May 8, 2013 10:46:57 AM Subject: [geo] If We Could Fix Climate Change With a Flick of a Switch, Will It be More Palatable to Conservatives? | Earth Island Journal http://www.earthisland.org/journal/index.php/elist/eListRead/if_we_could_fix_climate_change_would_it_be_more_palatable_to_conservatives Geoengineering might get more conservatives to believe in global warming – and I’m not sure that’s a good thing As the consequences of climate change become increasingly obvious (you know, floods, fires, and droughts), it’s becoming more and more difficult for conservatives to dismiss global warming out-of-hand. Yes, the folks at The Heartland Institute are still plugging along (thanks for sending me your recent book, fellows). But – outside the shrinking band of dead-enders – self-described conservatives are beginning to acknowledge that man-made climate change is real and will require action. A recent Gallup poll found that more than half of Republicans now acknowledge the existence of global warming, up from 39 percent in 2011.On Thursday Earth Island Journal and Grist are co-sponsoring a debate on geoengineering at the David Brower Center in Berkeley. Get your tickets here.Having long denied the problem exists and squandered precious time to mitigate it, some conservatives now say it’s too late to do anything about climate change. This is what a former Obama White House official has called “the sophisticated objection” to taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Or as Stephen Colbert explained the situation earlier this year in his signature style: “It’s high time we stop denying the problem and resign ourselves to each day getting worse.”In short, decades of delay and geopolitical gridlock have become an excuse for inaction and fatalism.That’s bad enough. It’s sort of like letting part of your house catch fire and then saying there’s no reason to call 911 because, hey, the neighbors aren’t calling the fire department, either. Might as well let ‘er burn.But I have another worry. I’m concerned that, with global atmospheric CO2 concentrations having topped 400 ppm (the highest in at least 800,000 years), conservatives will begin to say we have no choice but to embrace atmospheric geoengineering: technologies that will manipulate the entire planet by either blocking some sunlight from hitting Earth and/or finding ways to modify plants or the oceans to suck up vast amounts of carbon dioxide.My anxiety is based on an interesting study published last year by Yale’s Dan Kahan and other researchers. Kahan and his colleagues wanted to test what’s called the “cultural cognition thesis.” This is the idea (fairly well documented by now) that most of us base our opinions – not on evidence or rational thought – but on factors like the beliefs of our peer group, our existing ideological frames, and our concept of values. Or, to mangle a complex scientific hypothesis and put it into lay terms: Conservatives are skeptical of climate change because they think Al Gore is a fat doofus, while progressives are skeptical of unfettered gun ownership because they think Rush Limbaugh is a fat doofus. No matter how rational we think we are, each of us perceives the world through the veil of our own biases.Kahan et. al. wanted to test how individuals’ opinions about the risk of climate change are influenced by (among other things) whether they have heard of geoengineering. The researchers found that when given information about geoengineering, conservatives were more
Re: [geo] Exploring negative territory Carbon dioxide removal and climate policy initiatives
Greg and cc list No, I don't recall this paper (by Professor Meadowcroft) being discussed - only given in a list by Prof. Socolow several weeks ago. I did get something out of this paper, but I still have to reread it. I got stuck on one page - for his Table 1. The problem for me is that the author isn't (nor claims to be) expert in biochar - the only one of these eight CDR technologies where I have been working. There are only so many hours in a day. Prof. Meadowcroft is a Public Policy expert and can't possibly have enough time to become expert in any of the eight CDR technologies he compares, much less all of them. So I feel it is up to those who think they are a bit further along on one technology to pipe in (as I am about to do), using his Table 1 as a basis. I do so only for biochar, with the hope that others will do the same for the other 7 CDR technologies. I further hope all will comment on or object on anything I have written below. In Table 1, Prof. Meadowcroft has 48 entries in a 6 columns by 8 row matrix. The following are only for five columns for the fourth (biochar) row. Except for my personal RWL identifier, everything in bold, underlined and italics is quoted from row 3 (biochar) of this Table 1. Italics and underlining (without bolding) are from other rows (other CDR approaches) The following assumes the reader already knows biochar fundamentals. If not, first visit www.biochar-international.org . RWL Comments on Prof. Meadowcroft's Table 1 Column 1. Potential difficulties: Quantifying removals; verifying permanence; land use impacts and conflicts RWL: I disagree with all three statements; a) Quantifying CO2 removals (in the form of biochar) is straightforward on a sampling basis, especially if soil samples are saved from before and after biochar's application. Satellite observations seem likely soon. Soil scientists quantify soil carbon content all the time - with high accuracy.. b) Permanence can be verified also by returning to the field; subsidies/incentives can be based on permanence results c) Evidence is that farmers and land-owners are anxious to apply biochar, especially to poor soils. Conflicts can occur, but need not. But of course different potential difficulties exist and must be mentioned d) A peculiar potential difficulty is that any future biochar venture will have to concern itself with three income streams - rare in any business model. Besides the climate monetary stream of this article is an income for energy and an income for soil benefits. Even more complex is that the soil benefits continue for centuries if not millennia. An LCA (life cycle analysis) seems much harder here than for other CDR approaches, for these triple income and timing reasons. Not a problem it seems for any other CDR approach. e) There are a handful of small but active anti-biochar groups, based mainly on arguments made against biofuels. Biodiversity and indigenous peoples are prime. (and valid) concerns. A possibility of improper corporate behavior does not make a probability. Fortunately, these groups have not yet published any peer-reviewed publications re biochar. f) the mostly negative (certainly lukewarm) views on biochar in the 2009 Royal Society report on Geoengineering, and several others drawing on its several pronouncements. There were zero biochar experts voting on these rankings. Column 2. Potential co-benefits : 1) Agricultural productivity; 2) bio-energy production [RWL: Agree with both but need to add: a) From all four entries for Afforestation : 3) Livelihoods, 4) water management, 5) air quality, 6) biodiversity b) Modify the entry for BECCS : Linked to bio-energy pathways BECCS apples primarily to electricity from large electric power plants replacing coal). Biochar can do that but also be a co-product with biofuels replacing also: fossil 7) oil and 8) gas, 9) (smaller) combined heat and power (CHP) systems and 10) most bomass-related energy systems in developing countries (where biomass and even charcoal remain the main form of energy). This especially applies to char-making cookstoves. c) Add important technical benefits in 11) food security, 12) significantly reduced need for fertilizers, 13) much lower release (50%?) of N2O and 14) retention of fertilizer release associated with ocean and lake dead zones d) Add important sociological characteristics: 15) applies everywhere (every continent and most latitudes, 16) is rapidly advancing in public participation/interest/involvement, and 17) has received considerable positive reception from both small and large business and numerous non-profits and governments e) Of the following five CDR technologies the only co-benefit listed is from the 7th row - on Ocean acidification . Reducing ocean acidification This applies (18) to all eight CDR approaches. For many, ocean acidification is the reason for an interest in CDR, and
[geo] New climate article, peripherally related to CDR
List: 1. I believe this article from last week's Science could be valuable to this list, although there is (close to) zero mention of either side of geoengineering: Irreversible Does Not Mean Unavoidable ; H. Damon Matthews 1 and Susan Solomon 2 Science 26 April 2013 : Vol. 340 no. 6131 pp. 438 - 439 DOI: 10.1126/science.1236372 2. I hope someone can help me understand the use of Irreversible in the title and, as an example, in the final paragraph: Given the irreversibility of CO2-induced warming ( 5, 6), every increment of avoided temperature increase represents less warming that would otherwise persist for many centuries. Although emissions reductions cannot return global temperatures to preindustrial levels, they do have the power to avert additional warming on the same time scale as the emissions reductions themselves. Climate warming tomorrow, this year, this decade, or this century is not predetermined by past CO2 emissions; it is yet to be determined by future emissions. The climate benefits of emissions reductions would thus occur on the same time scale as the political decisions that lead to the reductions. Cites 5 and 6 are: 5. S. Solomon, G. K. Plattner, R. Knutti, P. Friedlingstein, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106, 1704 (2009). 6. H. Matthews, K. Caldeira, Geophys. Res. Lett. 35, L04705 (2008). 3. Believing that CDR is real and alive, I would have preferred to see this (my emphasis added) as: Given the reversibility of CO2-induced warming, every increment of avoided temperature increase represents less warming [x, y] that would otherwise persist for many centuries. Because emissions re movals can return global temperatures to preindustrial levels, they do have the power to avert additional warming on the same time scale as the emissions reductions themselves. Climate warming tomorrow, this year, this decade, or this century is predetermined by both past and future CO2 emissions and removals The climate benefits of emissions reductions and removals would thus occur on the same time scale as the political decisions that lead to the reductions. My cites (x and y) might be from Jim Hansen and Bill McKibben, but also this list, the Royal Society and the new NRC study all of which describe various CDR approaches. All mistaken? I ask why this second version should not be the more accurate. 4. In defense of the authors, whose work I otherwise uniformly admire, I think the intended word rather than irreversiblity might have replaced ir with (awkwardly) non-utilized or un-utilized. The ir strikes me as guaranteeing a physical impossibility, for which no proof is offered. I think this important as CDR gets too little attention anyway, to be saddled with irreversible 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] RE: Biochar: Downstream effects
List: cc Greg, Andr Fred 1. This topic is receiving viral attention in biochar circles. I understand there will be a response soon at the site www.biochar-internatonal.org I have been part of dialogs with several of the Science articles authors, and do not perceive now that great concern is warranted.by biochar proponents (like myself). I am now reading two of the author-provided background papers and will come back if I find anything new besides the following. Here is a probably pertinent quote from one of these background papers : Photo-lability of deep ocean dissolved black carbon A. Stubbins1, J. Niggemann2, and T. Dittmar2 : Biogeosciences, 9, 1661–1670, 2012 Scaling the rapid photodegradation of DBC to rates of DOC photo-mineralisation for the global ocean leads to an estimated photo-chemical half-life for oceanic DBC of less than 800 years. This is more than an order of magnitude shorter than the apparent age of DBC in the ocean. These quoted ages of the ocean DBC reassures me more about the recalcitrance of bochar. 2. Andrew asked about the color of these higher temperature carbon hydrogen compounds (there are hundreds). At this site: http://www.indianalivinggreen.com/polycyclic-aromatic-hydrocarbons/ was this sentence: The color of PAHs can vary from colorless to yellow-green. I cite this mainly to hope others on this list can provide more authoritative color data. This is a new topic in the biochar world. 3. Fred asked about learning something abut biochar by looking at a time-history of ocean color. Maybe, but there has been so little biochar added to soil and we think such a small fraction ever makes it to the ocean, that it should be difficult to tie anything historical to biochar. Biochar will be placed more carefully below surface (for economic reasons) than will occur for most lightning-generated char. 4. One of the biochar analysts looking at this today noted the issue of soil erosion. This next sentence came from a Wiki Each year, about 75 billion tons of soil is eroded from the land—a rate that is about 13-40 times as fast as the natural rate of erosion. Biochar proponents claim that biochar will help prevent erosion by improving tilth. This erosion release probably increased ocean albedo - but do we want that? 5. My guess (nothing more at this point) is that this will not be a show-stopper for biochar. But I welcome hearing other opinions, as this topic has already been used negatively. That was not the intent of the authors. Ron - Original Message - From: Fred Zimmerman geoengineerin...@gmail.com To: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com Cc: Ronal Larson rongretlar...@comcast.net, Greg Rau r...@llnl.gov, geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 6:33:46 AM Subject: Re: [geo] RE: Biochar: Downstream effects Excellent question! math intuition says that could have a huge albedo effect. Such an effect might be teased out from the archive of satellite ocean color observations. It should be easy to answer whether the ocean is, overall, getting darker with time. --- Fred Zimmerman Geoengineering IT! Bringing together the worlds of geoengineering and information technology GE NewsFilter: http://geoengineeringIT.net:8080 On Sun, Apr 28, 2013 at 8:43 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: Does it make the oceans darker? A On 21 April 2013 01:39, rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote: Greg and list: I have tried to figure out whether this paper by Jaffe et al is apt to harm or help the introduction of biochar. My perception is that Jaffe and co-authors see a fairly strong connection to biochar, but I am not so sure. There is so little biochar in place that what was being measured was almost entirely from forest fires, which char can be very different from what is now being tested . The persons at NSF who wrote up the press release (below) certainly tied this article in to biochar development. For those who don't subscribe to Science, here is what Jaffe etal said about biochar - 4 sentences in the last part of the last paragraph (with my comments on each in bold): 1. Bio-char applications to soils have been proposed as an effective means of carbon sequestration (30). RWL1: Certainly true and non controversial. (30) is J. Lehmann, J. Gaunt, M. Rondon, Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Gl. 11, 403 (2006) and is a good early background reference (at a time before biochar received its present name). 2. This activity may further enhance the translocation and export of DBC to marine systems. [RWL2: Also true - but equally true could be may not. The key is whether the material now ending up as DBC is more apt to be used by microbes and fungus - ending up mostly as CO2. Biochar literature says almost nothing about DBC, except that it is small. Char is presently used to absorb (not release) the polyaromatic
Re: [geo] RE: Biochar: Downstream effects
Greg and list: I have tried to figure out whether this paper by Jaffe et al is apt to harm or help the introduction of biochar. My perception is that Jaffe and co-authors see a fairly strong connection to biochar, but I am not so sure. There is so little biochar in place that what was being measured was almost entirely from forest fires, which char can be very different from what is now being tested . The persons at NSF who wrote up the press release (below) certainly tied this article in to biochar development. For those who don't subscribe to Science, here is what Jaffe etal said about biochar - 4 sentences in the last part of the last paragraph (with my comments on each in bold): 1. Bio-char applications to soils have been proposed as an effective means of carbon sequestration (30). RWL1: Certainly true and non controvers ial. (30) is J. Lehmann, J. Gaunt, M . Rondon, Mitig. Adapt. Strat. Gl. 11, 403 (2006) and is a good early background reference (at a time before biochar received its present name) . 2. This activity may further enhance the translocation and export of DBC to marine systems . [RWL2: Also true - but equally true could be may not. The key is whether the material now ending up as DBC is more apt to be used by microbes and fungus - ending up mostly as CO2. Biochar literature says almost nothing about DBC, except that it is small. Char is presently used to absorb (not release) the polyaromatic compounds that I gather are be ing measured to compute DBC. 3. The environmental consequences of this are presently unknown but may be reflected in the reduction of DOC bioavailability and associated effects on microbial loop dynamics and aquatic food webs. [RWL3: Again, I think the key word is may . Biochar is being promoted to increase terrestrial biomass. In the Amazon, terra preta soils have double and triple the soil productivity - so maybe there will be also increased DOC bioavailability. It also seems likely that a world with much biochar will have fewer and smaller forest fires . Also char, being placed deep in soils, will generally not be found as much in surface runoff as will char from forest fires. 4. Our data suggest that we apply our existing knowledge on DOC production, storage, and movement in soils to ensure that biochar applications are implemented sustainably and managed in ways to minimize riverine DBC fluxes. [RWL4: Th is is a welcome offer to help investigate the biochar connection fur ther. But I felt that DOC was being welcomed for ocean health reasons, and so if DOC and DBC are closely coupled, maybe t here is a way for b iochar to optimize both . Biochar is getti ng cre dit for preventing the release of excess fertilizers that are certainly harming ocean health, as well as wasting scarce farm-owner funds. Biochar's optimum temperature may be tunable to help in this tradeoff, if further research shows there is need for one. Part B Science magazine also has an introductory piece (p 287-288 ) in this same issue, by Rice University Prof. Caroline Massielo. Besides authoring five of the Jaffe etal cites, Dr. Masiello heads a biochar department at Rice and has authored numerous biochar papers. In her final four-sentence paragraph she says about the connection to biochar: 5. Jaffé et al. mention that biochar soil amendment may have unintended consequences through increased transport of DBC into aquatic and marine systems, with downstream impacts on aquatic food webs. [RWL5. It is not clear to me whether she is referencing positive or negative consequences/impacts. I am pretty sure that in most soils, the char is retaining, not releasing, dissolved carbon compounds . 6. These possibilities must be taken seriously. [RWL6: So perhaps th e possibilities are mostly seen as negat ive - mostly thinking I guess of carcinogenic PAH compounds 7. The successful scaling-up of biochar soil amendment will require assessment of the fate of biochar carbon both in the solid and dissolved phases. [RWL 7: Dr. Masiello is raising the additional topic of biochar proponents wanting long biochar lifetime - both solid and dissolved. Jaffe etal say in their first paragraph that charcoal is ubiquitous in the environment, where it slowly decomposes, but part of it is preserved for thousands of years . This long lifetime (clouded by the term part of ) is rarely acknowledged by biochar's (very few) critics. 8. Jaffé et al.’s observation that the aromatic, dissolved fraction of BC behaves at least in part like bulk DOC may make tracking DBC that much easier. (Emphasis added) [RWL8: I think this sim ilarity globally between BOC and BDC is the key new conclusion of the Jaffe paper and the Masiello introductory p erspective. But we still have the word may re track ing . Presumably it will be many years before there is sufficient riverine DOC and DBC from biochar to even be detected. Perhaps insightful lab tests can be
Re: [geo] Is atmospheric carbon dioxide removal a game changer for climate change mitigation? Kriegler et al | Climatic Change
Professor Socolow, List and several ccs 1. Thanks for the added follow-up to my note of yesterday (which [along with Andrew's starting note] I have excised to save space - since yours is more clear). 2. I googled for FEEM and eventually decided they were the host and not particularly active in the conference CDR topic. True? Rather, apparently it was Princeton (probably mostly yourself) and the two Italian groups CCCM and ICCG. Could you describe a little more on the way these groups did and may still be cooperating on the CDR topic? 3. Googling turned up one (excellent) PPt, and after some more googlng I found the full agenda. There were plenty of pdfs (a lot more than the ten in the forthcoming special issue) available at http://www.iccgov.org/EventDetails.aspx?IDEvento=51IDSM=59IDM=76Past=Lan=en-US It will take some time to comment on these, but for those on this list interested n CDR, I recommend this site - and thank Professor Socolow and others for putting this conference and the special issue together. 4. I may be wrong, because I haven't had time to look at these Ppts, but it appears that none on these newly found resources were presented by persons working on biochar. This is not so surprising when reading a conference advertising blurb, that similarly failed to mention biochar:: All the main CDR technologies will be considered, including afforestation, biomass with CCS, management of bio-stock, chemical direct air capture, enhanced weathering, and ocean fertilization 5. One question is whether this last sentence was written before or after trying to get a biochar representative to attend? Few biochar scientists/analysts are working to become part of the CDR community, but I think most would still think of themselves as being a main CDR approach. Or perhaps, being the only CDR approach that both provides energy and has centuries or millennia of out-year economic and CDR value, maybe it is in a category by itself? Can you (and anyone, but especially the ccs) help me understand where the conference organizers both did and would now place biochar within the CDR arena? 6. I find this important, because biochar would seem certain to be voted very low in this group's ranking of the CDR options - a vote with which I obviously do not concur, and which would be certain to harm biochar's future (now virtually non-existent) funding . Ron From: Robert H. Socolow soco...@princeton.edu To: rongretlar...@comcast.net, andrew lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com, massimo tavoni massimo.tav...@feem.it, Prof. Carlo Carraro carlo.carr...@feem.it, Kristin Kuntz-Duriseti (k...@stanford.edu) k...@stanford.edu, Gary Yohe (gy...@wesleyan.edu) gy...@wesleyan.edu, Michael Oppenheimer omich...@princeton.edu Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2013 5:09:35 AM Subject: RE: [geo] Is atmospheric carbon dioxide removal a game changer for climate change mitigation? Kriegler et al | Climatic Change Andrew: I very much appreciate your management of the geoengineering google group. Let me remove all mystery regarding the Special Issue on CDR in Climatic Change. This special issue was edited by Massimo Tavoni (FEEM, Milan) and me. It has ten papers. A paper version of the special issue will appear, as I understand it, in May. Already, nine of the ten articles are posted on the Climatic Change website; the exception is Massimo’s and my introductory article, which should be posted this week. All ten will be in front of the paywall, thanks to a commitment from all the authors that this is important to do when the audience extends beyond the academic community in “Western” countries. The list below has hyperlinks to the nine articles already available. The special issue arose from a meeting on CDR in Venice hosted by FEEM in 2011. Most of the ten papers are highly reworked versions of talks presented there. I will send a link to Massimo’s and my article as soon as it is posted. Robert Socolow CDR special issue of Climatic Change: Hyperlinks to papers 1. CLIM-D-12-00647 Modeling meets science and technology: An introduction to a Special Issue on Negative Emissions. Tavoni and Socolow. 2. CLIM-D-12-00193 The role of negative CO2 emissions for reaching 2°C - Insights from Integrated Assessment Modelling. van Vuuren et al. http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-012-0680-5 3. CLIM-D-12-00108R1 Can Radiative Forcing Be Limited to 2.6 Wm-2 Without Negative Emissions From Bioenergy and CO2 Capture and Storage? Edmonds et al. http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-012-0678-z 4. CLIM-D-12-00194R1 Is atmospheric carbon dioxide removal a game changer for climate change mitigation? Kriegler et al. http://rd.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-012-0681-4 5. CLIM-D-12-00181R2 Direct Air Capture of CO2 and Climate Stabilization: A Model Based Assessment. Chen and Tavoni.
Re: [geo] Is atmospheric carbon dioxide removal a game changer for climate change mitigation? Kriegler et al | Climatic Change
Andrew etal: 1. Again, th an ks for your key citation by Kriegler, etal, which (repeating) is: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-012-0681-4 ; 'Is atmospheric carbon dioxide removal a game changer for climate change mitigation? Elmar Kriegler 1 , Ottmar Edenhofer 1 , Lena Reuster 1 , Gunnar Luderer 1 and David Klein 1 I was a tad disappointed and surprised that an art icle on BECCS woul d not once mention the word biochar . B ut since the resource and CDR are in common, there m ay be some value to the biochar community in this artic le , especially as it is NOT behind the usual paywall. 2. The full pdf shows this is part of a (presumably) forthcoming special issue of Climatic Change (CC) devoted only to CDR. I could not find it as being already out and therefore could not find a full Table of Contents. But by searching at the CC site under the name of one of the special edition's editors, I came up with quite a few more - most also free. They can be found by going to the general CC website and doing a search. My search finding these below was: http://link.springer.com/search?facet-publication-title=%22Climatic+Change%22query=socolowsearch-within=JournalsortOrder=newestFirst The other articles I found and give here to save others' time are (not in any logical order): a. .Adjustment of the natural ocean carbon cycle to negative emission rates; M. Vichi 1, 2 , A. Navarra 1, 2 and P. G. Fogli 1 b. Direct air capture of CO 2 and climate stabilization: A model based assessment; Chen Chen 1, 2 and Massimo Tavoni 1, 2 c. The role of negative CO 2 emissions for reaching 2 °C--insights from integrated assessment modelling; Detlef P. van Vuuren 1, 2, 4 , Sebastiaan Deetman 1 , Jasper van Vliet 1 , Maarten van den Berg 1 , Bas J. van Ruijven 3 and Barbara Koelbl 2 d. Ecological limits to terrestrial biological carbon dioxide removal ; Lydia J. Smith 1, 2 and Margaret S. Torn 1, 2 e. Exploring negative territory Carbon dioxide removal and climate policy initiatives; James Meadowcrof 6. ; f. Can radiative forcing be limited to 2.6 Wm-2 without negative emissions from bioenergy AND CO2 capture and storage? ; James Edmonds Patrick Luckow Katherine Calvin Marshall Wise Jim Dooley Page Kyle Son H. Kim Pralit Patel Leon Clarke g. Optimal mitigation strategies with negative emission technologies and carbon sinks under uncertainty; Sabine Fuss Wolf Heinrich Reuter Jana Szolgayová Michael Obersteiner 3 Not free, but in same future special issue: Direct air capture of CO 2 with chemicals: optimization of a two-loop hydroxide carbonate system using a countercurrent air-liquid contactor : Marco Mazzotti , Renato Baciocchi , Michael J. Desmond , Robert H. Socolow (Not AT ALL encouraging) 4. I haven't read any of these, but a few briefly mention biochar and/or make a case for CDR. I will try to identify those later. Andrew - again thanks for this important (but somewhat disappointing) CDR lead. Ron - Original Message - From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 8:17:48 AM Subject: [geo] Is atmospheric carbon dioxide removal a game changer for climate change mitigation? Kriegler et al | Climatic Change http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-012-0681-4 Is atmospheric carbon dioxide removal a game changer for climate change mitigation? Elmar Kriegler, Ottmar Edenhofer, Lena Reuster, Gunnar Luderer, David Klein Abstract The ability to directly remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere allows the decoupling of emissions and emissions control in space and time. We ask the question whether this unique feature of carbon dioxide removal technologies fundamentally alters the dynamics of climate mitigation pathways. The analysis is performed in the coupled energy-economy-climate model ReMIND using the bioenergy with CCS route as an application of CDR technology. BECCS is arguably the least cost CDR option if biomass availability is not a strongly limiting factor. We compare mitigation pathways with and without BECCS to explore the impact of CDR technologies on the mitigation portfolio. Effects are most pronounced for stringent climate policies where BECCS is a key technology for the effectiveness of carbon pricing policies. The decoupling of emissions and emissions control allows prolonging the use of fossil fuels in sectors that are difficult to decarbonize, particularly in the transport sector. It also balances the distribution of mitigation costs across future generations. CDR is not a silver bullet technology. The largest part of emissions reductions continues to be provided by direct mitigation measures at the emissions source. The value of CDR lies in its flexibility to alleviate the most costly constraints on mitigating emissions. -- You received this message because you are subscribed
Re: [geo] Geoengineering Is a Dangerous Solution to Climate Change (mentions Keith; criticises GE research practices/funding)
Ken etal: Below is a follow-up to your note of two days ago. . Most of my comments are in reply to the 24 paragraphs of the following BFW screed (and thanks for that accurate wording) in Andrew's posting - Original Message - From: Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu To: andrew lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 6:46:16 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Geoengineering Is a Dangerous Solution to Climate Change (mentions Keith; criticises GE research practices/funding) The oddest bedfellow in all of this is biochar. [RWLa: I like this odd bedfellow label. It should help us with our continuing battles with Dr. Smolker and BFW.] The biochar folks who are active on this list are some of the few people who seem eager to identify their favored approach with the word geoengineering. (underlining added) [RWLb: As one of the biochar folks who are active on this list... as well as a long time debater (more often debunker) with BFW staff, I will try to respond to all of Dr. Smolker's talking points - and answer your interesting hypothetical no-till question below But first I must deny being .eager to identify their favored approach with the word geoengineering. I would have preferred that the Royal Society and others had not included biochar in the CDR category. I can't see that any benefit has resulted from this association. Dr. Smolker's remarks prove th is point. Rather, I continue on this fine geo list because biochar certainly does remove atmospheric carbon (and therefore is indeed a CDR [carbon dioxide removal] approach). So I try to contribute to this geo list because I think biochar to be (by far) the best CDR approach (being the only one that both provides energy and centuries if not millennia of soil improvement benefits (repeat - large benefits, not continuing out year costs). Too few on this list are able to follow the rapid changes taking place with the biochar technology - so I try to insert those updates here . ] Would the writer of this screed oppose no-till agriculture if the advocates of no-till agriculture embraced the term geoengineering? [RWLc: This is a great question. I am pretty sure the BFW answer would be yes, See below for a more complete rationale. The Smolker/BFW argument argument is basically: 1. large corporations and profit motives are bad/evil 2. biofuels are bad/evil - mostly because of fact #1 which BFW sees as an inherent component of biofuels 3. biochar has a biofuel component, so biochar is bad/evil 4. biochar is a form of geoengineeerng, so geoengineering is bad/evill 5. if no-till is a part of geoengineering, then no/till also must be bad/evil (but no-till is not considered as permanent as biochar, so no-till will have to work harder to earn BFW's negative rankings.) Geoengineering is a set of possible activities linked together by a single word, and not much else. [RWLd: Agreed. The worst part from a biochar perspective is when geoengineering is used in place of the SRM [solar radiation management] component of geo. I write here with an intent mostly to alert the biochar, not the geoengineering community. Thankfully this concern does not relate to the previous commenters in this thread - Ken, Greg, and Andrew. More below- no need for most geo list readers to read further, which is only a detailed rebuttal directed at BFW. I believe I am in total agreement with Ken on the value and val idity of the BFW screed The following is my time-limited attempt to put a biochar perspective on the material forwarded by Andrew. On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: Poster's note : Recommended reading as it contains personal and pointed criticism of research funding and practices. (That doesn't mean I agree!) http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/rachel-smolker/geoengineering-climate-change_b_2907068.html Rachel Smolker Co-director, Biofuelwatch [RWL1: I write below with the term BFW replacing Smolker - as most of the un-cited backup already appears on the BFW website.] blockquote Geoengineering Is a Dangerous Solution to Climate Change /blockquote [RWL2: It is rare that BFW mentions climate change. I have never found anything credible there about anything on climate except cutting back on fossil fuels. They never mention 350 ppm. They are opposed to REDD. blockquote As the realities of global climate change become ever more alarming, advocates of technological approaches to geoengineer the planet's climate are gaining a following. /blockquote [RWL3: True, thankfully. But this BFW article is t heir attempt to quench that gain. I believe the following from BFW are intended to discredit biochar - not geo. They have written mostly (all negative) on biochar , and very little on other forms of geo] blockquote But the technologies that are promoted -- from
Re: [geo] Re: Manipulating the planet: Is there a role for Negative Emissions Technologies in tackling climate change? - Next Big Thing event - London Monday 25 February
Henrik (cc list: ) Thanks for the alert: A direct link to the 79 minute event is: http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/modevents/item/manipulating-the-planet-is-there-a-role-for-negative-emissions-technologies-in-tackling-climate-change I found by far the most interesting (unfortunately the last and shortest of the six panelists; about 5 minutes starting at about the 51 minute mark) was yours - on BECCS. Yours was the only presentation by an expert witness (proponent) of the technology. But you were very gracious and mentioned biochar almost as often. I felt you effectively objected to testimony by earlier panelists - on risks and readiness. That BECCS and biochar are decidedly different ; non - one disagreed! You had another minute beginning about 1:00:30 mostly responding (I thought appropriately) to a question from Dr. Doug Parr of Greenpeace (a group not very fond of anything biomass-related) I heard nothing from the five others to object to strongly. But I didn't feel I was hearing from experts - rather from (mostly) skilled observers. I am glad the event was held - but doubt much will change as a result. I think this list would benefit from hearing your views on the event - as a participant. Maybe anything special happen off camera? And of course from any other list members there that evening. Ron - Original Message - From: Henrik Karlsson henrik.karls...@biorecro.se To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Cc: tim kruger tim.kru...@oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk, tim kruger tim.kru...@oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2013 3:09:21 PM Subject: [geo] Re: Manipulating the planet: Is there a role for Negative Emissions Technologies in tackling climate change? - Next Big Thing event - London Monday 25 February Photos and video from the event now available on http://www.flickr.com/photos/policyexchange/sets/72157632861199743/ Best, Henrik Karlsson Den tisdagen den 12:e februari 2013 kl. 11:30:05 UTC+1 skrev Tim Kruger: Manipulating the planet: Is there a role for Negative Emissions Technologies in tackling climate change? - Next Big Thing Monday 25th February 2013 Geoengineering, or large-scale manipulation of the planetary environment, is championed as a potential solution to climate change. However, the various technologies remain largely unproven and the unintended consequences of using such techniques are essentially unknown. Opponents have argued they risk creating greater environmental problems and that they undermine ongoing efforts at reducing greenhouse gas emissions by creating illusions of a quick ‘technical fix’. Yet, on the current trajectory, global efforts to combat rising CO2 levels are falling dangerous short and scientists argue that we need to understand the possibilities of geoengineering and think seriously about how we govern this highly controversial research. This London-based event is a collaboration between the Oxford Martin School, Policy Exchange and Nesta This event will discuss the major geoengineering technologies being developed and how policymakers should proceed with research into these controversial technologies. Look specifically at Negative Emissions Technologies (NETs), which target the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, this event will consider: What are the major technologies being developed? What are NETs and what contribution can they make to climate change mitigation? How should policymakers manage the risks created by such technologies, and how can such research be responsibly governed internationally? Will support for NETs undermine or complement efforts at mitigation? Is this the kind of technology Governments should support at all? And what is the role for the private sector, if any, in the development and development of these technologies? Speakers: Mike Childs, Head of Policy, Research and Science, Friends of the Earth Henrik Karlsson, Chief Executive Officer, Biorecro Oliver Morton, Briefings Editor, The Economist Chi Onwurah MP, Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office Professor Steve Rayner, Co-Director, Oxford Geoengineering Programme, Oxford Martin School Chair: Guy Newey, Head of Environment and Energy, Policy Exchange Join in on Twitter - #nextbigthing For more information and booking a seat, please visit www.eventbrite.com/event/5437754470 -- 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?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
Re: [geo] Proposal for NASA to Lead CDR Effort
List, cc John, Ken, Josh: 1. Apologies in advance for a too-long note. I think that how best to accelerate RD on CDR is a topic that needs to be continued on this list. It needs to have an international side as well as a US (NASA, NOAA, etc) side. t needs an SRM component as well. But below, I restrict myself mostly to just US agencies and CDR 2. John's tale of NOAA is very sad. But I believe they should still be involved in CDR RDD activities - the only subject raised by Josh in reporting the paper by Jim Hartung. Is there agreement that the same agency should not be in charge of both SRM and CDR? I have come to that conclusion - and the following is only on CDR - and only on the comments by Hartung at http://www.project-syndicate.org/online-commentary/nasa-geo-engineering-to-prevent-climate-change-by-jim-hartung 3. The next question for me is whether is whether one present existing US agency can or should handle the three main CDR approaches listed by Hartung: a. ... causing CO2-absorbing rocks to weather more quickly, b. ...expanding practices and technologies in farming and forestry that sequester carbon in soil, and c. ...fertilizing the ocean to stimulate the growth of plants that consume and sequester CO2. 4. Hartung earlier also talks of 10-20 possibilities - and I have seen lists that get about that long. Notably missing are artificial trees (coupled with CCS) But note that part b has at least four major subsets: afforestation/reforestation, reduced tillage and similar Ag practices, BECCS, and biochar. Biochar has potential important interactions with all three others, as well as the weatherization and ocean topics, but that is getting too detailed for this note. 5. For biochar, the only US Federal agency doing much work now is the ARS part of USDA. I read of a small amount of satellite surveillance by NASA that can be helpful.. But I think the US biochar community would be much happier with USDA leading a crash effort than NASA. But we are talking here of something larger than biochar, which I only use as an example. 6. US federal agencies besides NASA and USDA and that have a potential role in biochar accelerated development are (alphabetically) DoC (international trade, rural economic development) DoD (military interest especially in biofuels, but also in hostility minimization) DoE (biochar should always have an energy production side; biomass now viewed mostly as biofuel source; numerous skilled national labs), DoI (already helping wind and solar placement; large land manager) EPA (with responsibility on licensing - and possibly on revenue collections) NCAR (a lead agency on the CO2 problem) NOAA (since ocean biomass can feed biochar) USGS (water and fire responsibilities) (Not intended as an exhaustive list. I am intentionally leaving out NSF, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor, State, Transportation, Treasury and some others. Mayb e too quick a cut on some of these?) 7. So I conclude, for reasons of speed and the complexities of CDR that President Obama shouldn't choose a single existing agency - even NASA. He has to either create a new agency or a task force. I doubt the former is possible any time soon, given the US political stalemate. 8. So I suggest his only near-time choice is a task force, with some newly assigned Czar. Despite my reluctance to endorse NASA, I think Jim Hansen would bring the right background to this task. Alternatively, maybe John Holdren? There could be at least a thousand existing Federal employees seconded volunteers . Not working n the same building(s). The funding doesn't have to be proportional to where the new staff comes from. But they might need a million or so each (on average) of budgets (mostly from DoD?), but mostly staying, at least at first, within their existing agencies. A billion dollars in year 1, much for outside contracting - largely for in-place CDR research - not paper studies, would be a nice first year goal. The annual funding could largely come from removing existing fossil fuel tax breaks (about $4 billion per year, I see in one place). The funding for each CDR approach should not be equal - but rather be proportionate to present status towards rapid implementation. This could/should have a much more aggressive time schedule that that proposed by.Mr. Hartung. Again, sorry I got carried away. I just don't think we should let this CDR-advancement subject drop and am anxious to hear the views of others. I am perfectly fine with a similar (but not under one umbrella) program for SRM. Perhaps a single agency could handle SRM - but that is not the topic that Mr. Hartung and Josh have raised. Ron - Original Message - From: John Nissen johnnissen2...@gmail.com To: kcalde...@gmail.com Cc: joshuahorton...@gmail.com, geoengineering@googlegroups.com, John Nissen j...@cloudworld.co.uk Sent:
Re: [geo] Strategic incentives for climate geoengineering coalitions to exclude broad participation (new paper)
Katherine: Thanks for the very complete response. Almost nothing left to ask. I have excised all below except for a few follow-ups. - Original Message - From: K.Ricke klei...@gmail.com To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Cc: klei...@gmail.com, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@gmail.com, Juan Moreno-Cruz juan.moreno-c...@econ.gatech.edu Sent: Friday, February 22, 2013 1:27:41 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Strategic incentives for climate geoengineering coalitions to exclude broad participation (new paper) Dear Ron, Thanks for your questions. I am going to post some answers below point-by-point for clarity's sake. I hope these answers help clarify and please feel free to contact me directly (kri...@carnegiescience.edu) if they don't. Kate RWL: Here is my summary of where we stand: 2. OK blockquote 3. OK /blockquote blockquote 4. RWL .. That is - is the Grand Coalition curve of Figure 3 also the origin on the ordinate of Figure 2? /blockquote KLR: My paraphrasing you - No (but (me) numerically similar , and I'd like to better understand the departures) 5. All parts related to the Supplementary figures now better understood. Thanks. blockquote 6. OK. /blockquote blockquote 7. OK on Grand Coalition looking better. 8. Re applicability to CDR, we agreed not so. But I am not yet ready to agree with the first part of your final sentence - at least as it applies to biochar. You said: /blockquote It is slow and expensive . Biochar applications thousands of years ago were taking place in Brazil without subsidy, simply for ag benefits. Much similar is happening around the world today in small test plots. Speed will depend on our global sense of urgency. blockquote 9. OK on ignoring costs. I was pleasantly surprised to find that the recommended McClellan article was NOT behind a paywall. /blockquote McClellan J, Keith D and Apt J 2010 Cost analysis of stratospheric albedo modification delivery systems Environ. Res. Lett. 7 034019 (Note the 2010 typo in your reference list - should be 2012) blockquote The CDR topic (including biochar) needs similar treatment; biochar is NOT easy to analyze. 10. Me: Might the full set of your output data be available anywhere (now or later)? /blockquote blockquote /blockquote You mostly had a complete response here. Thanks. I visited the climateprediction.net site and will look up your three cites related to the paper under discussion. But I think it would also be helpful to also provide somewhere a table showing all the output data for the twenty-two regions - not just the (mostly complete) data for the winning coalition. I would hope for all six analysis years, not just 2070. Again thanks. I learned a good bit from digging more deeply (such as Nash b argaining ) , and especially your very complete responses 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Brief Summary Marine Geoengineering Techniques
Andrew see below - Original Message - From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com To: rongretlar...@comcast.net Cc: Chris Vivian chris.viv...@cefas.co.uk, geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 12:27:46 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Brief Summary Marine Geoengineering Techniques Hi One issue which concerns me about biochar is washout. When soil mixed with biochar is eroded, the biochar will end up in the water. RWL1: Andrew - First off, we should be making huge efforts to avoid the soil eroding, much less the char. World average erosion rates are staggering, and it is generally felt that biochar helps avoid that through changes in soil structure. But it is true that some char can/will/does float to the top in a heavy rain. But if initially placed sub-surface, floating can be a minimum problem. After some time, much of the char will have been attached to roots and/or become part of humus. So yes, this is a problem one should worry about and do something about. It's low density and very dark in colour. It's worrying from an albedo point of view. RWL2: Yes, agreed this is a drawback - but I think not too serious. First, most char (maybe all) should/can be subsurface. Second, with desired perennial growth , little sun should get to the surface. Third, one can simultaneously apply light colored rock dusts (possibly also a sequestering type). We don't want to end up with loads of floating dark charcoal covering up the world's oceans. RWL3: Agreed we don't want this. I believe a lot of climate historical information is obtained from char at the ocean/lake bottom - valuable because of the char's long life. I believe that new char generally floats but weathered char not so. See dialog from 2008 at: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/biochar/message/3747 The sequestration value of the cha r may be enhanced if at the bottom of the ocean. Has anyone looked at this? RWL4 : The biochar literature is definitely concerned on all three of your issues. I would say a bigger issue is that it is very difficult to specify char lifetimes. Definitely not infinite. There is a tradeoff in getting some fertilizer value from the labile portion of low-temperatuer char, vs the more sure longer lifetime of high-temperature char. We are bginning to be able to predict lifetime - and carbon credits can be modified to account for differences. Users may not care too muchabout lifetime, if soil productivity gain is large at first. Thanks for the questions. Ron A On 19 February 2013 18:33, rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote: Chris cc list a. Thanks for the answers. Very helpful. Obviously, I didn't get far enough into the citations and so your recommendation on the eight references in the Sequestration section were very helpful. b.. In order to save others time (especially for the biochar community to which I will also send this), I have expanded what you said on each of the cites. Obviously there a lot to work with. I insert my comments in bold into your section on this topic. It doesn't seem that any of your explicitly refer to biochar, but that s an easy additon. Use of Marine Macroalgae for Carbon Sequestration – Proposals for sequestering carbon through growing marine macroalgae date back to the early 1990’s – see Ritschard (1992). [RWL1: http://rd.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-011-2793-6_16 This is a book summarizing an important early sequestration conference of which I was unaware. I have the book ordered on interlibrary loan. More recently a few papers and reports have looked at the approach anew. Chung et al. (2011) critically appraised the approach, finding that it could play a significant role in carbon sequestration and amelioration of greenhouse gas emissions. RWL2: see http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10811-010-9604-9 Journal of Applied Phycology October 2011, Volume 23, Issue 5, pp 877-886 Using marine macroalgae for carbon sequestration: a critical appraisal N’Yeurt et al. (2012) proposed that ‘Ocean Macroalgal Afforestation’ has the potential to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels. RWL3: See: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957582012001206 This from a special issue of Process Safety and Environmental Protection that does also include bochar. These approaches are all at a very early stage of development with much more research needed to explore the possibilities, practicalities and potential problems. There has also been some investigation of the use of marine macroalgae as a fuel e.g. see Roberts and Upham (2012), RWL4: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X12000449 Marine Policy, Volume 36, Issue 5, September 2012, Pages 1047–1053, Prospects for the use of
Re: [geo] Brief Summary Marine Geoengineering Techniques
Chris cc list a. Thanks for the answers. Very helpful. Obviously, I didn't get far enough into the citations and so your recommendation on the eight references in the Sequestration section were very helpful. b.. In order to save others time (especially for the biochar community to which I will also send this), I have expanded what you said on each of the cites. Obviously there a lot to work with. I insert my comments in bold into your section on this topic . It doesn't seem that any of your explicitly refer to biochar, but that s an easy additon. Use of Marine Macroalgae for Carbon Sequestration – Proposals for sequestering carbon through growing marine macroalgae date back to the early 1990’s – see Ritschard (1992). [RWL1: http://rd.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-94-011-2793-6_16 This is a book summarizing an important early sequestration conference of wh ich I was unaware . I have the book ordered on interlibrary loan. More recently a few papers and reports have looked at the approach anew. Chung et al. (2011) critically appraised the approach, finding that it could play a significant role in carbon sequestration and amelioration of greenhouse gas emissions. RWL2: see http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10811-010-9604-9 Journal of Applied Phycology October 2011 , Volume 23 , Issue 5 , pp 877-886 Using marine macroalgae for carbon sequestration: a critical appraisal N’Yeurt et al. (2012) proposed that ‘Ocean Macroalgal Afforestation’ has the potential to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels. RWL3: See: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0957582012001206 This from a special issue of Process Safety and Environmental Protection that does also include bochar. These approaches are all at a very early stage of development with much more research needed to explore the possibilities, practicalities and potential problems. There has also been some investigation of the use of marine macroalgae as a fuel e.g. see Roberts and Upham (2012), RWL4: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X12000449 Marine Policy, Volume 36, Issue 5 , September 2012, Pages 1047–1053, Pr ospects for the use of macro-algae for fuel in Ireland and the UK: An overview of marine management issues Hughes et al. (2013) [RWL5 Same journal - March, 2013 Comments on ‘Prospects for the use of macroalgae for fuel in Ireland and UK: An overview of marine management issues’ and Kelly and Dworjanyn (2008) [RWL6 http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/media/211058/marine_biomass_anaerobic_biogas.pdf free 114 p report: The potential of marine biomass for anaerobic biogas production: a feasibility study with recommendations for further research and as a source of products e.g. see Lewis et al. (2011). [RWL7: http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/media/271433/products_from_marine_macro-algae_2011.pdf Product Options for the Processing of Marine Macro Algae Summary Report (50 pp) Aldridge et al. (2012) have considered the wider implication of marine macroalgal cultivation. [RWL8: http://www.thecrownestate.co.uk/media/358662/initial_environmental_consideration_of_large-scale_seaweed_farming.pdf This one I skimmed through; nice modeling. Seemed to support harvesting for energy reasons. Mentions harvest of 20 dry tons biomass/ha-yr I'll hope to find most in a library today - but if anyone can send #s 2-5, that would be appreciated. c. Other I found some more through googling for macroalgae biochar - especially by a Michael Bird in Australia . Thanks for the other answers below - that do not need a response beyond the above for #6 Ron - Original Message - From: Chris Vivian chris.viv...@cefas.co.uk To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Cc: Chris Vivian chris.viv...@cefas.co.uk Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 1:49:58 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Brief Summary Marine Geoengineering Techniques Ron and list, In response to your points: 2. I would agree that placing biochar in soil is likely to be the best place to put it, however, I was not commenting on that sort of issue in my paper. I have not seen any citations for depositing biochar in the ocean. My mention of depositing biochar/charcoal in the ocean was speculation that this might potentially reduce the impact on the deep sea environment compared to depositing crop wastes. 3. The paper has been submitted to the journal but is not yet on the website. 4. I have not come across any more recent citations on this point. Someone could re-run the search that David Keith used. 6. The section ‘Use of marine algae for carbon sequestration’ includes a number of references relevant to your point, particularly those covering the use on marine macroalgae as a fuel. Chris. On Monday, 18 February 2013 20:27:24 UTC, Ron wrote: Chris and list: 1. Thanks for forwarding your interesting 4-pager on marine engineering. I respond here only from the perspective of
Re: [geo] Brief Summary Marine Geoengineering Techniques
Chris and list: 1. Thanks for forwarding your interesting 4-pager on marine engineering. I respond here only from the perspective of biochar. 2. On your p 2, the word biochar appears this way: Depositing crop wastes on the deep seabed – Strand and Benford (2009) have proposed depositing bales of terrestrial crop wastes on the deep seabed and this could potentially be extended to include depositing biochar/charcoal or other organic remains. I have seen once an oblique reference (I might not be able to find now) to biochar possibly being beneficial when planting mangroves. But in general, I think the biochar community would recommend placing biochar in soil - perhaps the most seriously degraded coming first. The benefit would be centuries or millennia (?) of continuing productivity improvement that it is not obvious could also occur in the oceans Have you seen any citations to similar out-year productivity (or other) benefits if biochar was deposited in the ocean? 3. I liked very much your method of directing readers to links. However for the first (Belter and Seidel, 2013), I was unsuccessful finding anything at the WIREs ste. Can you/anyone help? 4. The second citation directed us to a small part of a Keith AGU 2011 lecture was a little disappointing as the citation history ended with 2010. Can anyone update that history - and/or describe how to get something from Google or other ? 5. Most interesting to me was the first half of the same AGU lecture - a talk by Ken Caldera comparing several CDR approaches. This is the topic of my next note - as Ken's talk had relatively little to do with oceans - and I have seen so few CDR comparisons. 6. I hope next time you can write something about harvesting ocean biomass (macroalgae and other) for use on land as input for such CDR approaches as BECCS and biochar. I believe the energy and soil benefits of such a direction of biomass movement will nicely complement the potential CDR benefits of ocean biomass. Again thanks for bringing your concise marine/oceans/geoengineering survey to our attention. Ron - Original Message - From: Chris Vivian chris.viv...@cefas.co.uk To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 4:22:19 AM Subject: [geo] Brief Summary Marine Geoengineering Techniques For your information, see the attached leaflet on marine geoengineering techniques that has been submitted to the IMO as a UK information paper for the forthcoming London Convention/Protocol Scientific Groups meeting. The leaflet is also on the Cefas website at: http://www.cefas.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/20120213-Brief-Summary-Marine-Geoeng-Techs.pdf Best wishes Chris. -- 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?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out . -- 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] Brief Summary Marine Geoengineering Techniques
List (cc Ken) 1. This note is to draw attention to a nice April 2011 comparison of different CDR approaches that I had not seen before being sent to it by Chris Vivian.(see below). For about 25 minutes of Ken Caldeira comparing most of the CDR alternatives at an American Meteorological Society meeting, see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbNDG2xFOVg 2. Quicker is to view only Ken's roughly 25 slides at: http://www.ametsoc.org/atmospolicy/climatebriefing/Caldeira.pdf 3. Here is Ken's final slide, after 1 slide each on most CDR options, broken into 3 subgroupings Main conclusions • Avoiding carbon dioxide emissions is key to reducing climate risk and damage • Carbon Dioxide Removal removes cause of climate change and ocean acidification • There are many approaches to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere • No approach is obviously both cheap and scalable • Best introduce no new kinds of risks • May be opportunities for some low-cost mitigation • Some could be deployed today or soon • Many are understudied 4. I would have mostly agreed two years ago, and still of course do agree with the three main bullets. But now I would modify Ken's last five sub-bullets (speaking only for biochar) as follows (and hoping other CDR practitioners will similarly append) • No approach is obviously both cheap and scalable, but biochar could/might be both - because of energy and on-going soil benefits, as well as CDR benefits • Best introduce no new kinds of risks, and biochar is in the best category - no major unavoidable risks have yet been ident ified in any peer-reviewed publication • May be opportunities for some low-cost mitigation , especially since biochar can be coupled with afforestation/refores tation - and costs must be in comparison to other options • Some could be deployed today or soon, with afforestation and biochar especially - as much is happening today even w ithout carbon credits - on every continent. • Many are understudied, but biochar is rapidly overcoming that hurdle - in many countries , through dozens of national and sub-national interest groups, and more than 100 University degree programs. 5. Ken also showed a ranking slide from the Royal Society report - where biochar got mostly a 2 out of possible high of 5. I believe most active biochar researchers today would give about a 4 on the four ranking categories. As near as I can tell, there was no biochar researcher in the expert group doing the rankings. I would like to see a new 2013 ranking, with a balanced panel. 6. This is not to say that Ken was in error on anything in his 2011 presentation. It is just that CDR needs more discussion - especially on scenarios with the large (urgency-driven) scales that are becoming more common. For new information on biochar costs and market readiness, not available two years ago, I hope Ken and others will look at these websites: www.coolplanetbiofuels.com and www.biochar-international.org Ron - Original Message - From: rongretlar...@comcast.net To: Chris Vivian chris.viv...@cefas.co.uk Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 1:27:24 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Brief Summary Marine Geoengineering Techniques Chris and list: snip 5. Most interesting to me was the first half of the same AGU lecture - a talk by Ken Caldera comparing several CDR approaches. This is the topic of my next note - as Ken's talk had relatively little to do with oceans - and I have seen so few CDR comparisons. -- 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?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: [geo] RE: recent papers on marine ecosystem geoengineering
Greg (cc list and pboyd): I like your paper. But I wonder if the concept of using ocean biomass for harvest and eventual partial placement of half the carbon in soil (as biochar) was inadvertently or intentionally omitted. I see major advantages of using ocean biomass (macroalgae and smaller) for biochar as worthy of your and this list's consideration for these reasons, that seem not to be shared by the options you did discuss: a. it provides rather than consumes energy b. the generated energy can be of any form - solid, gas or liquid - for any end use sector. My preference is to back up wind and solar, not for base load service. c. It can improve most soil types - almost all of which are rapidly depleting - with significant improved out-year nutrition benefits from increased primary production. d. the carbon sequestration, although not infinite, is possibly measured in millennia, certainly centuries - perhaps longer than some you include. e. such harvesting is already occurring, and generally the practice would seem to have little international legal/moral concern, especially if practiced in near-shore waters. Ron - Original Message - From: Greg Rau r...@llnl.gov To: pb...@chemistry.otago.ac.nz, geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 9:44:13 PM Subject: [geo] RE: recent papers on marine ecosystem geoengineering Nor should iron fertilization necessarily be viewed as the poster child for marine CDR. Some other ideas attached - I was limited to 2,00O words. -Greg From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Philip Boyd [pb...@chemistry.otago.ac.nz] Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 6:54 PM To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: [geo] FW: recent papers on marine ecosystem geoengineering Dear Geo group, I have noticed that much of the discussion on this topic are based on older papers. Here is a recent one. Williamson P., D. W.R. Wallace , C.S. Law, P.W. Boyd, Y. Collos, P. Croot, K. Denman, U. Riebesell, S. Takeda, C. Vivian (2012) Ocean fertilization for geoengineering: A review of effectiveness, environmental impacts and emerging governance. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 9, 475–488. and also a link to a Theme Section on this topic from 2008 Implications of large-scale iron fertilization of the oceans Idea: Howard Browman, Philip W. Boyd Coordination: Philip W. Boyd MEPS 364:213-309 | Complete Theme Section in pdf format (2 MB) Philip Professor Philip Boyd FRSNZ NIWA Centre of Chemical Physical Oceanography Department of Chemistry University of Otago Dunedin New Zealand 03-479-5249 From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ken Caldeira [kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu] Sent: Monday, February 11, 2013 1:06 PM To: drisc...@atm.ox.ac.uk Cc: geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] A Cheap and Easy Plan to Stop Global Warming By David Rotman A nicely done article. I would like to expand on one of Ray Pierrehumbert's comments. He is quoted as saying: “The term ‘solar radiation management’ is positively Orwellian. It’s a way to increase comfort levels with this crazy idea.” —Raymond Pierrehumbert He is right that it was created to inrease comfort level, but it was done so with ironic intent. In 2007, I was organizing a meeting that took place at NASA-Ames. (Incidentally, that meeting is where this google group started. http://hdl.handle.net/2060/20070031204 ) There was some nervousness on the part of local NASA officials that the term geoengineering might raise red flags back in Washington. At the time, DOE was talking about carbon management which was a bureaucratic way to speak about the potential for CO2 emissions reduction. To avoid the use of the word geoengineering in the meeting name, I suggested that we create the term Solar Radiation Managment to use for the workshop. It was meant as parody of US-government-style bureaucratic jargon. It was meant as a joke and was intentionally obscurantist. We were laughing about it at the time and never dreamed that it would become standard jargon. The term Solar Radiation Management was meant to lower the profile of the meeting while parodying Washington jargon. It amuses me that it has become standard jargon. What started out as parody has moved on from its comedic roots. Comedy has become drama. Incidentally, lately I have been using the term solar geoengineering as my term of choice to refer to what SRM has come to denote. Best, Ken ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira Caldeira Lab is hiring postdoctoral researchers. http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_employment.html Our YouTube
Re: [geo] A Cheap and Easy Plan to Stop Global Warming By David Rotman
Ken (cc List and Simon - with thanks to Simon for bringing this TR news item to our attention) 1. I am a little disappointed that you say A nicely done article. You are usually supportive of separating the term geoengineering into the separate SRM and CDR components. This article never once mentions CDR. 2. One has to assume that Rotman (and/or Keith?) believe there is nothing at all to the CDR approach. This last conclusion follows from this peculiar un-attributed statement (the thought of Rotman? of Keith?) that begins paragraph 8: The overriding reason why Keith and other scientists are exploring solar geoengineering is simple and well documented, though often overlooked: the warming caused by atmospheric carbon dioxide buildup is for all practical purposes irreversible , because the climate change is directly related to the total cumulative emissions. I hope someone can explain why the last because clause justifies the just preceding four bolded/underlined words. Or perhaps someone on the list can give us a few of the well-documented citations behind this weird conclusion. There are at least 100 academic programs around the world with biochar in their name - who will be mighty surprised that they are working on an irreversible problem. 3. Should I suspect a conspiracy when Prof. Pierrehumbert is only partially quoted from his recent AGU talk? Here is a skipped quote (see last December's message #61 on this list), where (my added emphasis) the Professor stated: I see lots [ of geoengineering ideas ] that are feasible but they all terrify me. Let me clarify a bit. Some people refer to schemes for taking CO2 out of the atmosphere, or sequestering CO2 as a form of geoengineering. Those I find relatively benign because they [ aim to ] put the climate system back in the state that it was in before we started to mess with it. 4. So two request s: a. Can you assure us that your above compliment on the article was not done in the same parody spirit with which you coined the SRM term? b. Can you generate a new term to replace CDR, since CDR seems not to have caught on as well in geoengineering circles as did SRM? Ron - Original Message - From: Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu To: drisc...@atm.ox.ac.uk Cc: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 5:06:13 PM Subject: Re: [geo] A Cheap and Easy Plan to Stop Global Warming By David Rotman A nicely done article. I would like to expand on one of Ray Pierrehumbert's comments. He is quoted as saying: “The term ‘solar radiation management’ is positively Orwellian. It’s a way to increase comfort levels with this crazy idea.” —Raymond Pierrehumbert He is right that it was created to inrease comfort level, but it was done so with ironic intent. In 2007, I was organizing a meeting that took place at NASA-Ames. (Incidentally, that meeting is where this google group started. http://hdl.handle.net/2060/20070031204 ) There was some nervousness on the part of local NASA officials that the term geoengineering might raise red flags back in Washington. At the time, DOE was talking about carbon management which was a bureaucratic way to speak about the potential for CO2 emissions reduction. To avoid the use of the word geoengineering in the meeting name, I suggested that we create the term Solar Radiation Managment to use for the workshop. It was meant as parody of US-government-style bureaucratic jargon. It was meant as a joke and was intentionally obscurantist. We were laughing about it at the time and never dreamed that it would become standard jargon. The term Solar Radiation Management was meant to lower the profile of the meeting while parodying Washington jargon. It amuses me that it has become standard jargon. What started out as parody has moved on from its comedic roots. Comedy has become drama. Incidentally, lately I have been using the term solar geoengineering as my term of choice to refer to what SRM has come to denote. Best, Ken ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution for Science Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira Caldeira Lab is hiring postdoctoral researchers. http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/Caldeira_employment.html Our YouTube videos On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:29 AM, Simon Driscoll drisc...@atm.ox.ac.uk wrote: http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/511016/a-cheap-and-easy-plan-to-stop-global-warming/ Ray Pierrehumbert recently sent this to me, and I haven't seen this posted to the group (apologies if it has been and I missed it in a quick search), so I thought it may be of interest. All the best, Simon Simon Driscoll Atmospheric, Oceanic and Planetary Physics
Re: [geo] Fwd: New report highlights SLCF emissions in the Nordic countries
Stephen and list I have known one of the key authors of the recent black carbon (BC) report, U Illinois Prof. Tami Bond for some years. A few weeks ago, I had a chance to hear and talk with her more on the details of that study. You and other cloud experts personally could help a lot in removing a large present uncertainty in the manner in which BC is influencing cloud formation - not just global warming magnitude but also direction. Much black carbon-cloud research is clearly needed. Besides the obvious need to cut back on man-made and natural fires, she noted the huge negative effects of kerosene lanterns - which is something relatively easy to remedy with solar electric systems. However, I write this mostly to see if any on this list can provide an answer that Prof. Bond could not. - how large might the BC contribution be of making charcoal in the bush, where emissions are mostly vented, rarely flared? I think it likely that mostly illegal char-making is more of a problem than the quite serous problem of cooking with poorly performing (but no or low first-cost) stoves. There is a growing awareness that char-making stoves (for CDR purposes, using biochar) can provide black carbon and CDR benefits in addition to efficiency and health benefits. To repeat - has anyone seen any data on how much BC comes from making charcoal in the bush? Ron - Original Message - From: Stephen Salter s.sal...@ed.ac.uk To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, February 4, 2013 7:47:12 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Fwd: New report highlights SLCF emissions in the Nordic countries Hi all Black carbon gives a short-lived climate forcing if it is covered by a fall of nice new clean snow. But if there is lots of snow melt many old layers of black carbon and volcanic ash will get exposed. Stephen -- Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design School of Engineering University of Edinburgh Mayfield Road Edinburgh EH9 3JL Scotland s.sal...@ed.ac.uk Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704 Cell 07795 203 195 WWW.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs On 04/02/2013 14:38, Oliver Tickell wrote: There is at least one kind of geo-engineering that is both effective and uncontroversial - reducing black carbon emissions - in particular those reaching the Arctic! Original Message Subject:New report highlights SLCF emissions in the Nordic countries Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 13:55:37 + From: Michael Funch m...@norden.org Reply-To: Michael Funch m...@norden.org To: Climate Change Info Mailing List climat...@lists.iisd.ca CC: h...@nst.dk h...@nst.dk , Anna Gran a...@norden.org , Frøydis Johannessen f...@norden.org New report highlights SLCF emissions in the Nordic countries Conclusions and recommendations on Nordic actions against Short-lived Climate Forcers: New report produced as a follow up to the Svalbard Declaration from the Environment Ministers in the Nordic countries . High concentrations of Short-lived Climate Forces such as black carbon may have a large impact on global warming, especially for the Arctic region. The good news, however, is that early reductions of such pollutants could reduce the speed of global warming in the short term. Emission reductions will also have important health benefits. Realising that global emissions of SLCFs can only be effectively abated through broad international, regional and national initiatives, the Nordic Ministers of Environment from Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden adopted “ the “Svalbard Declaration” in March 2012 and agreed to improve the basis for national and joint Nordic initiatives. To support the work initiated by the ministers, the Nordic Climate and Air Quality Group under the Nordic Council of Ministers has now produced a new report with nine specific policy recommendations on immediate Nordic actions, Nordic campaigns and international actions. Read the full report . Read the Svalbard Declaration . Background Recent scientific findings have identified that the so-called Short-lived Climate Forcers (SLCFs) such as black carbon (soot) might have a larger impact on global warming than earlier assessments have indicated, especially for the Arctic climate, resulting in rapid melting of snow and ice in the Arctic region. Abatement of these emissions would reduce the speed of global and Arctic warming. The Nordic Climate and Air Quality Group under the Nordic Council of Ministers held a seminar in June 2012 where scientist and policy-makers discussed recent scientific developments and on-going activities related to SLCF’s. This included national experiences with emission inventories, identification of cost-effective measures to cut emissions and the drawing up of national action plans as well as the development in the field of international co-operation on SLCFs. In addition, the workshop adopted a number of conclusions and
Re: [geo] The Artificial Intelligence of Geoengineering.
Ms. Deschambault (cc geoengineering list) : Your six page communique to this list cited below fails to take sufficiently seriously the present climate situation - about which you make essentially no mention. To equate all of geoengineering to artificial intelligence.and genome mapping doesn't at all capture the seriousness of global warming. Your proposed policy alternatives, in the six bullets preceding your final paragraph, offer no hope for getting back to 300 or 350 ppm. The one that comes closest, (and which probably 100% of the geoengineering community can endorse) is when you say: Cut GHG emissions directly and deeply My concern: You presumably are still opposed to all CDR (carbon dioxide removal) techniques - such as tree planting and biochar. These approaches which clearly remove past GHG emissions are in the CDR subset of geoengineering. If these are to be banned (your term in bullet #1), I should like to know the ETC rationale for differentiating between past and future GHG emissions. Or do I misread your intent on removal as opposed to cut in this article? And why is the term CDR not once mentioned in this article. Ron - Original Message - From: etcgroup e...@etcgroup.org To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 8:03:00 AM Subject: [geo] The Artificial Intelligence of Geoengineering. Dear all, please find pasted below a link to a new piece published yesterday by ETC Group titled 'The Artificial Intelligence of Geoengineering that you might find interesting. http://www.etcgroup.org/sites/www.etcgroup.org/files/AI_Geoengineering_Governance_130119.pdf Best regards from a very cold Ottawa. Joelle Deschambault Programme Administrator/Office Coordinator ETC Group -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] Practical potential of carbon sequestration via wood harvest and storage (WHS) in Climatic Change
Professor Zeng: Thanks you for both writing the cited article and attaching it for us all. Makes reading it much easier and quicker, given usual paywalls.. I see merit in WHS, but (as someone concentrating on the biochar alternative) want to ask a few questions especially on the total woody biomass resource base which is the larger part of your paper - and which you max out at 3 GtC/yr. As you are certainly aware, biochar will only sequester about half of the carbon that you are calculating (with the other half potentially providing carbon neutral advantages). But it can provide several (compensaitng) advantages that WHS cannot - some of which are in your article. I mean first year energy (income) and out-year (investment) soil improvement advantages (arguably growing exponentially). But obviously WHS has first year sequestration advantages. You may have looked at some of the questions following that would help demonstrate larger overall CDR advantages - on which we seem to agree. a. You have identified about 10 GtC/yr as the technical maximum portion of the global 60 which is harvest-able in the form of (presumably somewhat uniform) tree trunks. That sounds reasonable. However, for bioenergy and biochar, smaller diameters and crooked woody material are still quite usable. Can you identify how much larger the technical pool might be for using the same woody resources for biochar or bioenergy (rather than WHS)? Might a doubling of woody resource be possible or is that too much? b. It is not obvious that you have assumed an increase in today's global 60 GtC/yr. I read Jim Hansen as proposing perhaps an additional 5 GtC/yr (or more?) of photosynthesis capability. Are you increasing today's 60 GtC/yr in this article's computations and do you think we can increase to 65 or 70 GtC/yr? c. You seem to have excluded the concept of plantations (including multi-species energy plantations [for biodiversity reasons]. Coppicing of plants like miscanthus, switch grass or even sugar cane offer much higher annual yield than you are assuming. Also many bioenergy approaches are assuming the use of ag residues (maybe even ocean resources). Could you have additional WHS potential in non-tree species and complete annual harvesting? (leading to minimizing the problem of plateauing of standing biomass which you identify.) d. Many biochar supporters believe that energy, soil improvement, water retention and food are as important as carbon sequestration. Can you comment on how WHS addresses these other sustainability issues? There are other questions along these lines (any topic to increase the total biomass availability beyond 3 GtC/yr) that I hope you can also address - hoping that you get my drift. Alternatively stated, how much additional sequestration potential can be gained as the WHS resource base is expanded beyond (relatively long, large and straight?) wood trunks? Again thanks for the paper and the considerable work behind it. Ron - Original Message - From: Ning Zeng z...@atmos.umd.edu To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, January 20, 2013 10:02:48 AM Subject: [geo] Practical potential of carbon sequestration via wood harvest and storage (WHS) in Climatic Change Carbon sequestration via wood harvest and storage: An assessment of its harvest potential Zeng, N., A.W. King, B. Zaitchik, S.D. Wullschleger, J. Gregg, S. Wang, D. Kirk-Davidoff, 2012: Climatic Change. DOI: 10.1007/s10584-012-0624-0. A carbon sequestration strategy has recently been proposed in which a forest is actively managed, and a fraction of the wood is selectively harvested and stored to prevent decomposition. The forest serves as a 'carbon scrubber' or 'carbon remover' that provides continuous sequestration (negative emissions). Earlier estimates of the theoretical potential of wood harvest and storage (WHS) based on coarse wood production rates were 10±5 GtC y-1. Starting from this physical limit, here we apply a number of practical constraints: (1) land not available due to agriculture; (2) forest set aside as protected areas, assuming 50% in the tropics and 20 % in temperate and boreal forests; (3) forests difficult to access due to steep terrain; (4) wood use for other purposes such as timber and paper. This 'top-down' approach yields aWHS potential 2.8 GtC y-1. Alternatively, a 'bottom-up' approach, assuming more efficient wood use without increasing harvest, finds 0.1-0.5 GtC y-1 available for carbon sequestration. We suggest a range of 1-3 GtCy-1 carbon sequestration potential if major effort is made to expand managed forests and/or to increase harvest intensity. The implementation of such a scheme at our estimated lower value of 1 GtC y-1 would imply a doubling of the current world wood harvest rate. This can be achieved by harvesting wood at a moderate harvesting intensity of 1.2 tC ha-1 y-1, over a forest area of 8 Mkm2 (800 Mha). To achieve
Re: [geo] Re: Those darn wedges
Len and list: Thanks for continuing the discussion on the Davis etal paper. It would appear that we are in substantial agreement. One place I would disagree with your draft article (cite given below, p4) is where you say: Anaerobic conversion of 'bio-waste' to 'bio-char', and burying it in soil has promise, but is very difficult to manage efficiently on a large-enough scale. I believe you are seriously misreading that technology's growth path - with much larger corporate investments than I have seen in any other geoengineeering area - either SRM or CDR. I think the profit motive, coupled with a lot of private citizen and soil scientist enthusiasm will drive biochar faster than you are apparently projecting. The drive is much more on the energy and soil sides than the atmospheric side, but there is zero conflict between the soil and atmosphere motivations. Everything I read in your paper, which nicely supports the concept of many (8?) wedges of CDR available from the biosphere, will go well with biochar. I would like your opinion on whether the Davis paper is now covering anything you have written. To others, Dr. Ornstein has a very nice presentation in his paper (cited below) on the concept of draining the bathtub - that I have yet to discern as being central in the Davis paper . As a minor editorial comment, I urge replacing bio-char in your paper with biochar . The former is not picked up in searches for the much more common latter form. I need to do more research on both of the biomass proposals in your cited draft. Re bringing water to the desert for new forests, my previous reading put some very high prices on this approach. I shall re-read your earlier papers on this topic, but fear the huge investments needed are gong to make this one a tough sell. But more irrigation is clearly a needed investment - maybe more for annually harvested grasses than forests.. Before bringing water to the Sahara, we can do a lot with land much closer to the oceans. Re RIL and SENCH, these also sound worthy of more RD on our part. For reasons of largest possible NPP, I lean towards stands of something that can be coppiced annually - perhaps miscanthus. I agree we need the extra wedges possible with what you are proposing here - but think we have lower cost alternatives available today - when so little CDR is taking place anyway.. Ron - Original Message - From: lenor...@pipeline.com Ornstein lenor...@pipeline.com To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2013 9:35:18 PM Subject: [geo] Re: Those darn wedges Ron: See Thermostatting the Earth http://www.pipeline.com/~lenornst/ThermostattingTheEarth.pdf There I note that virtually all discussions of dealing with AGW virtually completely ignore the potential for very large contributions to lowering the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to pre-industrial levels - that is by 8 or more wedges - by applying Irrigated Afforestation o! large, subtropical deserts, and by sustainable, eco-neutral, conservation harvest (SENCH) in 'virgin' tropical forests (both open source 2009 papers on these subjects are cited therein)! The general subject of large scale drawdown of atmospheric CO2 needs to be brought into all discussions of how to deal with AGW! Len Ornstein On Friday, January 11, 2013 1:56:27 PM UTC-5, Greg Rau wrote: Anyone for GE? - Greg Environmental Research Letters Volume 8 Number 1 Steven J Davis et al 2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 011001 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/011001 Rethinking wedges OPEN ACCESS Steven J Davis 1,2 , Long Cao 2,3 , Ken Caldeira 2 and Martin I Hoffert 4 Show affiliations sjd...@uci.edu lon...@zju.edu.cn kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu marty@nyu.edu 1 Department of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697, USA 2 Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Stanford, CA 94305, USA 3 Department of Earth Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, 310027, People's Republic of China 4 Department of Physics, New York University, New York, NY 10003, USA Tag this article Full text PDF (586 KB) Abstract Stabilizing CO 2 emissions at current levels for fifty years is not consistent with either an atmospheric CO 2 concentration below 500 ppm or global temperature increases below 2 °C. Accepting these targets, solving the climate problem requires that emissions peak and decline in the next few decades, and ultimately fall to near zero. Phasing out emissions over 50 years could be achieved by deploying on the order of 19 'wedges', each of which ramps up linearly over a period of 50 years to ultimately avoid 1 GtC y -1 of CO 2 emissions. But this level of mitigation will require affordable carbon-free energy systems to be deployed at the scale of tens of terawatts. Any hope for such fundamental and disruptive transformation of the global energy
Re: [geo] Those darn wedges
Greg and list (adding 4 ccs [authors]) 1. Thanks for bringing this new wedge paper to our attention. A short informal version - comments by the lead author (Davis) - are also at: http://ess.uci.edu/news/news-11012 2. My man concern on the article is that the concept of wedges providing carbon negativity or CDR is barely mentioned. The only exception I found (emphasis added) is:: Most model scenarios that allow CO2 concentrations to stabilize at 450 ppm entail negative carbon emissions , for example by capturing and storing emissions from bioenergy [11]. [11] Clarke L et al 2009 International climate policy architectures: overview of the emf 22 international scenarios EnergyEcon. 31 S64 I presume that there is agreement that a natural metric for CDR is a wedge (Giga tonnes C/yr)? I don't know this cite, but it doesn't sound like one for bioenergy . The term decarbonization and power/energy are often used - and I don't associate these with CDR. Most CDR proponents don't think in terms of stopping at 450 ppm. 3. Thus, this is to ask the authors if the paper's intent was or was not to include CDR as a wedge concept. The final conclusion could/should be more positive if CDR were fully analyzed. For instance, Jim Hansen employs afforestation in multi-wedge amounts to achieve substantial CDR towards 350 ppm. 4. On this list, I think it also important to have some discussion on how SRM fits into the paper's conclusions. Needless to say, the four authors' thoughts on the practicality of large amounts of CDR should be impacting their thoughts on SRM. So, briefly - was CDR being modeled in this paper? If so, how can we determine the magnitudes assumed? Nothing on this in the Suppemental Information. Ron Ron - Original Message - From: Greg Rau r...@llnl.gov To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 11:56:27 AM Subject: [geo] Those darn wedges Anyone for GE? - Greg Environmental Research Letters Volume 8 Number 1 Steven J Davis et al 2013 Environ. Res. Lett. 8 011001 doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/011001 Rethinking wedges OPEN ACCESS Steven J Davis 1,2 , Long Cao 2,3 , Ken Caldeira 2 and Martin I Hoffert 4 Show affiliations sjda...@uci.edu long...@zju.edu.cn kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu marty.hoff...@nyu.edu 1 Department of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697, USA 2 Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Stanford, CA 94305, USA 3 Department of Earth Sciences, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, 310027, People's Republic of China 4 Department of Physics, New York University, New York, NY 10003, USA Tag this article Full text PDF (586 KB) Abstract Stabilizing CO 2 emissions at current levels for fifty years is not consistent with either an atmospheric CO 2 concentration below 500 ppm or global temperature increases below 2 °C. Accepting these targets, solving the climate problem requires that emissions peak and decline in the next few decades, and ultimately fall to near zero. Phasing out emissions over 50 years could be achieved by deploying on the order of 19 'wedges', each of which ramps up linearly over a period of 50 years to ultimately avoid 1 GtC y -1 of CO 2 emissions. But this level of mitigation will require affordable carbon-free energy systems to be deployed at the scale of tens of terawatts. Any hope for such fundamental and disruptive transformation of the global energy system depends upon coordinated efforts to innovate, plan, and deploy new transportation and energy systems that can provide affordable energy at this scale without emitting CO 2 to the atmosphere. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] Geoengineering conflicts: the ETC map
Andrew and List (adding Prof Martinez-Alier as cc) Thanks for this new information below.. I have reviewed the EVOLT site and am a bit confused. I can't find the word biochar even once. I don't want any researcher looking at the EVOLT site to think biochar is being discussed by EVOLT, if it is not. Below, Professor Martinez-Alier, says about ETC (my main interest in this response).: One should start with ETC’s impressive inventory and map of 300 Climate Engineering projects and experiments, correcting mistakes or omissions in agreement with ETC itself. The ETC group has been at the vanguard of civil society engagement with geoengineering. Then, a smaller but in-depth inventory of conflictive cases, is urgently needed. Thankfully, obviously, we would be making a big mistake in thinking that EJOLT is in complete agreement with ETC. I note that one can't find the term CDR anywhere on the ETC site. There are 7 references to biochar but not one is to a peer-reviewed anti-biochar document. This is OK since ETC does not claim to be the premier anti-biochar iste; ETC is accepting the analytical work of others. But ETC certainly should not be thought of any sort of expert group on geoengineering - or any of its subparts, regardless of producing a map.. Re the actual ETC data and map, i note that almost all for biochar are directly quoted from the IBI website - and so I urge Prof Martinez-Alier to do the same. Biochar is about 30% (79) of the total number of ETC map entries. - I judge to be larger than any other geoengineering category (which, strangely, includes lots of algae and weather modification), but some entries mention more than one company, project, or product. There may more university degree programs for biochar at the IBI site than ETC has given overall. In other words, what looks like a large set of geoengineering entries by ETC is both over and undercounting at the same time. (I assume ETC doesn't want to make biochar, algae, etc. look too popular - especially in academic circles This is to hope Professor Martinez-Alier can give us a little more background on how the ETC data and map will be pared back (corrected?) for the new EVOLT geoengineering study. Under some circumstances, a number of us on this list are probably ready to help - for instance on fracking where I applaud the EVOLT emphasis. Ron - Original Message - From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2013 4:23:24 PM Subject: [geo] Geoengineering conflicts: the ETC map Posters note : lots of links, pls read online if poss http://www.ejolt.org/2013/01/geoengineering-conflicts-the-etc-map/ Joan Martinez-Alier. When we wrote the EJOLT project three years ago, we selected a wide range of environmental justice conflicts: from extraction to waste and from nuclear to biomass. But we left aside some relatively new and upcoming types of environmental conflicts. There is the recent boom in shale gas fracking. And serious questions arise on geoengineering experiments. Last autumn, the world’s largest geoengineering experiment caused a much needed public debate. The incident revealed the urgent need for ecological economists, political ecologists and activists to dig deeper in this issue.Geoengineering is the intentional, large-scale technological manipulation of the Earth’s systems, often discussed as a techno-fix for combating climate change. But scientists and engineers do not operate in a vacuum. Once they produced a technology, entrepreneurs and governments will decide where and when to use it. But what if these technologies have uncertain far reaching and long lasting impacts on a vast number of people, if not the whole world population? That is their aim, by altering the climate. But then how can other stakeholders than scientists, entrepreneurs and governments be brought into such a crucial dialogue? Can they bring the incommensurability of values or the unequal distribution of costs and benefits to the table? Can they influence decisions that affect them on such a vast and deep scale?It has been rightly written by the Earth Institute at Columbia University that “Governance is perhaps the thorniest aspect of geoengineering. Because geoengineering is a relatively cheap way to address climate change, it is unilateral—rich countries and billionaires could finance it on their own – yet the consequences would be global. Who then should get to control geoengineering, and under what governance? Some strategies would benefit certain countries and harm others, so who would have the right to decide whether, when and how to use it? Geoengineering would likely create winners and losers – should losers be compensated?”.How uncertain risks, costs and benefits of environmental actions or inactions are distributed among contemporary human groups, and with future generations and other
Re: [geo] Published in Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems: Geo-Engineering For Global Warming Needs International Laws With Teeth
Andrew and list (adding two new ccs): 1. I found the full article (for free) at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2165372 It is quite complete - 46 pages, 265 footnotes (a good many fewer references - but a lot) 2. Here are the final five paragraphs: IV. TOWARD GEOENGINEERING GOVERNANCE skip many pages E. The Scientists Decisions concerning geoengineering must be based on sound science. Proponents of geoengineering propose to make massive, possibly planetarywide, changes to the earth’s climate system. Before any such proposals are allowed to move forward, they must be subject to a careful, independent, and neutral scientific assessment of their feasibility, likely effectiveness, and risks. If geoengineering is a necessary part of the solution to our climate problem (and we fear it may be), then international decisions about approving geoengineering must be structured to ensure that approved projects are those that are most likely to succeed, that the projects do not conflict with one another, and that special pleading or political influence does not trump science in the approval process.258 International environmental treaties seek to secure scientific input into the international policy-making process in a variety of ways.259 We think the concerns noted above require a very strong mechanism for science advice in any geoengineering agreement. A scientific advisory committee should be created and given power to review and make recommendations concerning any geoengineering proposal that is presented to the international governing body.260 Ideally, no action could be taken without the concurrence of this body, but such a requirement might overly politicize the group and would certainly complicate negotiations concerning its composition. Therefore, it may be preferable to make its decision recommendatory only. With respect to composition, the minimum requirements should be that the individuals serving on the panel are persons of recognized scientific standing with expertise in climate change, geoengineering, weather modification, or the human/social impacts of climate instability. To ensure the independence of members, they must be expressly authorized to serve in their individual capacities and not as government representatives.261 A scientist’s home state should be expressly precluded from giving the scientist instructions or seeking to influence the scientist’s decision. 262 Finally, reports and recommendations of the body should be publicly available, which will allow for scrutiny and analysis by other independent scientists.263 V. CONCLUSION We have no illusions that the governance roadmap we have provided in this paper is comprehensive; we know that many details must be worked out in negotiations. Nevertheless, we believe that the principles and basic governance structure sketched out above could provide the foundation for a workable agreement to bring geoengineering under coherent and effective international control. We hope in a future paper to offer more detailed suggestions about the content of a treaty on this subject. In her 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand described a composer named Richard Halley who, like many of Rand’s protagonists, was a man of transcendent and unappreciated genius. Halley wrote an opera based on the myth of Phaëthon. As anyone familiar with Rand’s work will probably guess, Halley’s operatic version of the myth departs from the Greek story in one significant way: Phaëthon controls the chariot and completes his flight; humankind triumphs even against the forces of gods and nature.264 We think it is almost inevitable that humankind will seek to fly Phaëthon’s chariot. We must hope that Rand’s optimistic and utopian modern mythology is more prophetic than the fatalistic vision of the Greeks and Romans. We must also work as best we can to ensure the enterprise’s success. 256 Martinez-Diaz, supra note 246; Woods Lombardi, supra note 232. 257 See Buira, supra note 248. 258 Financial muscle and political influence is already lining up behind certain geoengineering solutions, and leading scientists are acquiring financial stakes in particular techniques that may influence their future advocacy of particular geoengineering proposals. See generally Vidal, supra note 132. 259 See, e.g., Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution [LRTAP], art. 7, Nov. 13, 1979, 1302 U.N.T.S. 217 (encouraging research and research cooperation with respect to air pollution); Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer art. 7, Sept. 16, 1987, 1522 U.N.T.S. 3 (establishment of expert panels to conduct scientific assessment of measures to control ozone-depleting substances); UNFCCC art. 5, supra note 178 (research support and cooperation); id., art. 9 (establishment of intergovernmental body for scientific assessment); Rotterdam Convention on Prior Informed Consent
Re: [geo] Re: New Research on OIF
Chris: Your message below has caused me to delay responding to other messages in this thread. I found the 68 page report to be new (to me), very well written, and one I will now follow up on closely. I found (p 61 (or 63/68) ) that Professor Jones also has a 2011 text book that I have ordered via inter-library loan. That seems to cover a wider range of geoengineering (or only CDR??) topics. Can anyone report on that book (Title: Engineering Strategies for Greenhouse Gas Mitigation )? The cite you have given (below) was for a group new to me called ECOR - of which Prof. Jones is a key part . I wish we had more such groups. Professor Jones goes through three types of carbon storage in the oceans, concluding that he likes best the biologic approaches (favored on this list predominantly [and today] by Bhaskar). As I am asking about the ocean resource being appropriate for biochar, this part was welcome news. But Prof. Jones and his co-authors have concluded that ocean resources make no sense for use on land. At the top of p31, they say: The ocean offers a more promising site than the land for using biological processes on a scale commensurate with the predicted global problem. I need further discussion on this - and will see what Prof. Jones' new textbook says on biochar, BECCS, CROPS, etc. I have to (and will) re-read the report as I can't now find a sentence that I think might have similarly discarded the idea of moving biomass from the oceans to land. If then used for biochar, I see two advantages that I suspect may not have been considered: a) the use of the biomass for energy purposes (through pyrolysis - not combustion), and b) the use of the resulting charcoal for long-lived continuing soil benefits. These two additional uses of ocean biomass I don't see in this report - and both have income (not expense) streams associated with them. Both income streams (and someday also a stream of carbon credits) would seem to have some possibility of covering the (correctly concerns about) costs of transport. The ship portion of transport of many things is featured in this report and seem pretty low per tonne-km . 2. Again, I apologize for responding first to this message rather than several others mostly on CROPS. But I found this Chris-referred report very fascinating - with a large amount about ocean biomass growth that I did not expect. Besides Bhaskar's concern today about not covering one type of ocean photosynthesis, I saw nothing on macroalgae - kelp. More needs to be discussed about this nice report. Ron - Original Message - From: Chris chris.viv...@cefas.co.uk To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Cc: bhaskarmv 64 bhaskarmv...@gmail.com, joshic...@gmail.com Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 6:37:40 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: New Research on OIF Ron and list, You might be interested in the ECOR report ‘Enhanced carbon storage in the ocean’ that can be found at: http://www.oceanicresources.org/ecor-news/ocean-sequestration-of-carbon-working-group-report/attachment/ecor_wg_report_4-6_clean/ . It quoted a cost of about £260 per tonne CO2 avoided for OIF. Chris Vivian. On Saturday, 15 December 2012 20:57:39 UTC, Ron wrote: Bhaskar and list: 1. a. The original Strand and Benford paper that you are asking about today (and cited by Joshua Jacobs yesterday) is available without fee at: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es8015556 b. Shortly thereafter (in 2009, same journal, no fee) there was a pretty strong negative reaction against their C.R.O.P.S. approach. This objection was based mostly on the need to retain all crop residues for the benefit of the soil. See http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1021/es9011004 This paper's lead author was Douglas Karlen, with nine co-authors. The cite is Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 8011–8015 c. Their final four sentences (emphasis added) were: We conclude that although ocean sequestration may have a role in mitigating atmospheric CO2 concentrations, humankind should not risk the future productivity of our soils by drowning crop residues. Perhaps the CROPS concept could be coupled with the use of a thermochemical platform for production of biofuel where the biochar coproduct could be used not only for CCS but also to remove phosphorus and other aqueous contaminants moving through the soil. The crucial question is whether this can be done without creating unintended environmental consequences. All in all, minimizing environmental changes will require careful study, a balanced approach, and full accounting for all intended and nonintended consequences. d. I emphasized the biochar part above because I had not seen this article until today and because biochar was also not being compared in the original paper by Professors Strand and Benford. Neither paper mentioned BECCS, but I think Karlen etal would have similarly been concerned about a failure to address soil
Re: [geo] Re: New Research on OIF
Greg et al See inserts below. - Original Message - From: RAU greg gh...@sbcglobal.net To: rongretlar...@comcast.net, bhaskarmv 64 bhaskarmv...@gmail.com Cc: joshic...@gmail.com, geoengineering@googlegroups.com, Doug Karlen doug.kar...@ars.usda.gov Sent: Sunday, December 16, 2012 11:56:22 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: New Research on OIF Thanks Ron. As for Karlen et al's grand solution: If the CROPS concept is not acceptable to soil and water scientists, what alternatives are offered to address rising CO 2 concentrations? Energy efficiency and conservation (29) are certainly a top priority, which is consistent with the North Central Region Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education (NCR-SARE) Administrative Council recommendations for sustainable bioenergy production (30). Anyone care to diagram how energy efficiency and conservation are going to save the planet from excess CO2 when we need essentially zero fossil fuel emissions to stabilize air CO2? [RWL1: The Karlen etal Reference 29 is to the Pacala-Socolow discussion of wedges (sometimes also used for CDR). I think this was intended as a throw-away sentence. I am pretty sure that Karlen has more sophistication on the problem than suggested by this single sentence - since the entire rest of the paper is on a CDR approach. Reference 30 leads one to this site: http://www.northcentralsare.org which has a huge number of cites. I found 80 cites related to biochar, but only one related to geoenegineering. I conclude that geoengineering is not doing a very good job talking to soil scientists.] Also if CROPS is a bad idea, shall we also try to halt the 0.5 Gt/yr of terrestrial org C (1.8 Gt/yr CO2 equivalent) that is currently washing into the ocean and being stored, thus risk its terrestrial decomposition and return to the atmosphere? [RWL2: I catch your point, but I still would have to say yes - we should try to halt that washing. I guess there is a lot of char in that total (being light weight) - that would do more long term good staying in the soil and amy do no good in the ocean. But two other things are washing away with the organic C: a) lots of fertilizer (causing dead zones around the world) and b) lots of soil. Immediately following the paragraph you cite, is this caption for their Figure 1: FIGURE 1. Silt-laden rivers in China, where for over 40 centuries people lived in harmony with their land, now lose 18 kg of farmable soil via erosion for every 1 kg of food eaten. It wouldn't surprise me that there is a similar statistic for Iowa. Biochar isn't the whole solution, but is regularly listed as being helpful in soil conservation (as rainfall can better enter the soil).] For what it's worth, my own philosophy is: for environmental and societal reasons, never send in biology to do a job that geochemistry does more effectively and safely (but not more quickly without our help). Yet under the circumstances, would welcome being proven wrong. [RWL3: Since biochar and pyrolysis may fall into the category of geochemistry (or is that biogeochemistry?), and since I know so little of either geochemistry or biogeochemistry, I don't think I want to argue with you. But I don't think much of CDR is devoted to biology - except in the case of biochar. With biochar, we certainly are in need of biologists to figure out a lot more on how to make modern biochar as effective as the millennia-old terra preta in the Amazon. Biology is one very complicated branch of science - and it is important to the biochar-world that so many of Karlen's co-authors are in that area - many with the Agricultural Research Service (ARS). The ARS could do a good bit more if they had some funding labeled biochar. Another CDR place we need biologists is in increasing NPP - for help on the afforestation side of CDR. Almost lastly, a good part of this thread is devoted to ocean biomass - and therefore presumably to biology. Lastly, I see a great future role for coupling biochar with those geochemistry approaches using rock dust. Greg - Sorry to not agree with much you have said this time. Ron] -Greg From: rongretlar...@comcast.net rongretlar...@comcast.net To: bhaskarmv 64 bhaskarmv...@gmail.com Cc: joshic...@gmail.com; geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Sat, December 15, 2012 12:57:43 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: New Research on OIF Bhaskar and list: 1. a. The original Strand and Benford paper that you are asking about today (and cited by Joshua Jacobs yesterday) is available without fee at: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es8015556 b. Shortly thereafter (in 2009, same journal, no fee) there was a pretty strong negative reaction against their C.R.O.P.S. approach. This objection was based mostly on the need to retain all crop residues for the benefit of the soil. See http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1021/es9011004 This paper's lead author was Douglas Karlen, with nine co-authors.
Re: [geo] Re: New Research on OIF
Stewart and Andrew This being exclusively about BECCS, I answer this before going to Stuart's two earlier messages today re biochar and CROPS. Few inserts - mainly in Andrew's message. - Original Message - From: Stuart Strand sstr...@u.washington.edu To: andrew lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com, Bhaskar M V bhaskarmv...@gmail.com, joshic...@gmail.com, rongretlar...@comcast.net Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 2:07:11 AM Subject: RE: [geo] Re: New Research on OIF Sounds good, but it’s another hurdle. Let’s see what the math says. [RWL 1 : I agree with Stuart that we need math here - and Stuart he has done a good job with the Math of CROPS . I hope he can apply that same math approach to biochar. I don't know the BECCS world well enough - but think it faces some legal and business hurdles as well as math problems.] = Stuart = Stuart E. Strand 490 Ben Hall IDR Bldg. Box 355014 , Univ. Washington Seattle, WA 98195 voice 206-543-5350, fax 206-685-9996 skype: stuartestrand http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/ From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 12:52 AM To: Stuart Strand Cc: geoengineering; Bhaskar M V; joshic...@gmail.com; rongretlar...@comcast.net Subject: RE: [geo] Re: New Research on OIF Surely CO2 from BECCS doesn't need to be stored locally. Fuels (inc wood) are already shipped globally. Why should biofuel for BECCS be any different? It would make sense to take fuel by sea or rail to the best storage locations, or to pipe the CO2 to the same. Indeed, shipping compressed CO2 like CNG may make sense. A [RWL: I like Andrew's transportation argument here - which applies to CROPS and biochar as well as to BECCS. I only know of three published Life Cycle Analyses (LCA) for biochar - but none raised serious tr ansportation-cost issues for biochar . In general, BECCS plants are likely to be an or d er of magnitude larger in scale than biochar-related power plants (which might also therefore be more likely to be combined heat and power (CHP)). I am even thinking we may much biochar application for backing up wind and solar - right at the biomass-preoducing farms - no transportation cost. So the transportation cost issues seem sure to be larger for BECCS than biochar. But more importantly, BECCS cannot be coupled with biofuels. See the website: www.coolplanetbiofuels.com There probably cannot ever be CCS for any bio-thermal project (too small) . BECCS seems to me to be having a very hard time getting going (on the CCS side) - so I would like to hear more on the topic of first commercial plant. That part of the biochar story talking about biopower can also capture the CO2 and be thought of at least partially as BECCS. BECCS has a big first-year advantage over the usual non-CCs biochar in both energy and CDR contexts, since so much more of the initial biomass C can end up being sequestered after providing twice as much energy. The tradeoff is that BECCS only has out-year expenses and (I think) larger first year expenses - while biochar has a projected set of out-year sequestration and income benefits. Part of these out-year benefits are N20 and CH4 related. I will not repeat the soil scientist concerns over land i mprovement/degradation. But my main concern for BECCS remains the legal ones. If I owned mineral rights on land intended for any CCS operation, I would expect to be paid for using that space I presumably own. My recollection is that the federal funding for the first CCS (and BECCS) plants also includes a good amount for insurance. I would welcome dialog on these non-simple economic topics. Ron On Dec 17, 2012 8:43 AM, Stuart Strand sstr...@u.washington.edu wrote: Regarding biochar, I would like Ron or others to provide a total estimate of the total amount of carbon that could be sequestered globally in agricultural soils only, not including any forest soils, with peer reviewed citations please. BECCS carbon analysis depends on whether efficient and practical use of crop residues requires co-burning with coal (in which case the carbon balance falls well below 100%), or whether CR can be burnt efficiently and practically alone, without co-combustion. And whether CO2 sequestration underground will be accepted by the public in high agriculture productive societies. = Stuart = Stuart E. Strand 490 Ben Hall IDR Bldg. Box 355014 , Univ. Washington Seattle, WA 98195 voice 206-543-5350 , fax 206-685-9996 skype: stuartestrand http://faculty.washington.edu/sstrand/ From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto: geoengineering@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of rongretlar...@comcast.net Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2012 12:58 PM To: bhaskarmv 64 Cc: joshic...@gmail.com ;
Re: [geo] Re: New Research on OIF
Stuart (with ccs) It seems best to at least start to answer both of your responses at one time. So I bring here your earlier response today with a few inserts: You wrote (with my inserts): The 2009 paper I wrote with Benford was a quantitative analysis of the ocean sequestration ideas of Metzger and Benford 2003. The Karlen paper was a rejection of all removal of crop residues, presumably rejecting use of CR for biofuels as well. [RWL: Not so sure of this. A ny cites? The ag comm unity word wide sees highly interested in bei ng able to use their land for energy as well as food/fiber. Two sources of inc ome look better than one. The Karlen paper presented no quantitative analysis of carbon sequestration in soils, rejecting our estimates without presenting an estimate of their own of the long term sequestration of CR left on the soil surface. [RWL: They probably believed t heir support of no-till to preserve soil health didn't need much discussion in their audience. This group of authors is probably fairly well split on the benefits of biochar - and the technical biochar litera ture is re plete with disagreements on how to allocate crop resid ues between biochar and compost. Much is alleviated with land dedicated only to perrenial energy crops l ike miscanth us - and the assumption that biochar is applied to this land. But they obfuscated the issue by suggesting a double accounting of carbon sequestration in subsequent years to replace the carbon lost by oxidation back to the atmosphere from previous years crop residues left to oxidize on the soil surface. [RWL: My guess is they would dispute this. But I think I am agreeing with you that crop residues that are only composted have a pretty short lifetime in the soil. Ther e are arguments all over the place on the lifetime of biochar in the same soil. We can go into this literat ure at some time. Their rhetoric aside, long term (centuries at the bare minimum) sequestration of any single year’s production of crop residue carbon in soils where they are left to rot on the surface is negligible. [RWL: Agreed for much of the Karlen paper discussion. What are your impressions of biochar lifet ime from the same crop residues? More below. = Stuart = - Original Message - From: Stuart Strand sstr...@u.washington.edu To: rongretlar...@comcast.net, bhaskarmv 64 bhaskarmv...@gmail.com Cc: joshic...@gmail.com, geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 1:41:40 AM Subject: RE: [geo] Re: New Research on OIF Regarding biochar, I would like Ron or others to provide a total estimate of the total amount of carbon that could be sequestered globally in agricultural soils only, not including any forest soils, with peer reviewed citations please. RWL2: First I apologize for running out of time tonight. I will give ful l citations ASAP (I am out a good bit tomorrow) and will look up more. a. Cornell's Johannes Lehmann has used a number I believe of 9.5 Gt C/yr. b. Tim Lenton (UK - recently moved from East Anglia) has repeated this number in an oft-cited publication. c. Peter Reed used (I think) the number 10 in several peer-reviewed publications. Peter (now deceased) is the one bringing me into this list. d. The paper by Wolff, Amonette etal is the most quoted number with an upper limit of a bit more than 1 Gt C/yr. Most of their number is from crop residues. They have specifically stated that their would be no modification of any land use. I presume this also would say that Jim Hansen's afforestation approach to CDR would not be allowed. They also specifically assumed there would never be any improvement in productivity - and I think based their projections on present yields - never even assuming any improvement even due to biochar. Needless to say, there are a few disagreeing with these very conservative limitations. e. Some BECCS proposers have bigger numbers (Royal Society) - and I see no reason to believe that anything available to BECCS wouldn't be about 2/3 as large with biochar (before considering out - year extra growth and additional out-year climate benefits ). f. Not peer-reviewed, but probably receiving even more scrutiny than almost any CDR approach is found at www.coolplanetbiofuels.com They report that when they were about 15 employees is size, they entertained 17 top GE people for a review of what t hey were claiming. They are talking in the range of several wedges - from only the biofuels side of biochar. (Hopefully) I will supply a few more cites tomorrow. BECCS carbon analysis depends on whether efficient and practical use of crop residues requires co-burning with coal (in which case the carbon balance falls well below 100%), or whether CR can be burnt efficiently and practically alone, without co-combustion. And whether CO2 sequestration underground will be accepted by the public in high
Re: [geo] Re: New Research on OIF
Bhaskar and list: 1. a. The original Strand and Benford paper that you are asking about today (and cited by Joshua Jacobs yesterday) is available without fee at: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es8015556 b. Shortly thereafter (in 2009, same journal, no fee) there was a pretty strong negative reaction against their C.R.O.P.S. approach. This objection was based mostly on the need to retain all crop residues for the benefit of the soil. See http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1021/es9011004 This paper's lead author was Douglas Karlen, with nine co-authors. The cite is Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 8011–8015 c. Their final four sentences (emphasis added) were: We conclude that although ocean sequestration may have a role in mitigating atmospheric CO2 concentrations, humankind should not risk the future productivity of our soils by drowning crop residues. Perhaps the CROPS concept could be coupled with the use of a thermochemical platform for production of biofuel where the biochar coproduct could be used not only for CCS but also to remove phosphorus and other aqueous contaminants moving through the soil. The crucial question is whether this can be done without creating unintended environmental consequences. All in all, minimizing environmental changes will require careful study, a balanced approach, and full accounting for all intended and nonintended consequences. d. I emphasized the biochar part above because I had not seen this article until today and because biochar was also not being compared in the original paper by Professors Strand and Benford. Neither paper mentioned BECCS, but I think Karlen etal would have similarly been concerned about a failure to address soil improvement. Soil improvement is a (the?) big part of biochar, as shown in bold above. It is this last aspect that I have been anxious to talk further with you about as I wondered whether biochar could be made from fertilized ocean based resources. e. I hope that Professors Strand and Benford can take this opportunity to reply to both you and Karlen, etal. I also hope they can compare CROPS with the biomass options they did not originally consider: biochar, BECCS ,and local burial of biomass. 2. a. Since you are really asking about CDR costs - presumably to compare with your approach for sequestering in oceans, I have to extend this response to include the citation in the Thursday message below from Wil Burns. He gave a PR release to a still-forthcoming paper by Australian Daniel Harrison, whose abstract I found at this site: http://interceder.net/latest_news/Daniel-Harrison b. The Paper abstract: A method for estimating the cost to sequester carbon dioxide by delivering iron to the ocean Order a copy of this article by Daniel Harrison Abstract : If society wishes to limit the contribution of anthropogenic carbon dioxide to global warming then the need to find economical methods of CO2 sequestration is now urgent. Ocean iron fertilisation has been suggested as a low cost mitigation option to capture and store carbon. However previous methods of estimating the cost fail to account for many of the losses and offsets occurring over the storage period. A method for calculating the net carbon stored from iron fertilisation of high nutrient low chlorophyll (HNLC) regions is provided here. The method involves first calculating the direct cost to create phytoplankton biomass in the surface ocean. The net amount of carbon stored is then calculated by considering the fraction of this carbon exported as deep as the permanent thermocline and subtracting losses due to: ventilation, nutrient stealing, greenhouse gas production, and CO2 emitted by the sequestration operation for a given storage period. Commonly available iron fertiliser delivered by ship to the Southern Ocean is considered as a case study using parameters derived from previous fertilisation experiments and modelling studies. On average, a single fertilisation is found to result in a net sequestration of 0.01 t C km-2 sequestered for 100 years or more at a cost of US$457 per tonne CO2. Iron fertilisation experiments show high variability in the amount of biomass created and the fraction exported to depth, the range of uncertainty provides a risk of more carbon released to the atmosphere than sequestered for 100 years, or alternatively, reduced cost if optimistic parameters are assumed. Previous estimates of cost fail to recognise the economic challenge of distributing low concentrations of iron over large areas of the ocean surface and the subsequent loss processes that result in only a small net storage of carbon per km2 fertilised. The cost could be lowered by the use of more energy efficient means to distribute the small amounts of iron required over large regions of remote ocean surface, by improving the performance of the iron fertiliser, or potentially by conducting fertilisation activities only
Re: [geo] Re: New EPA report
Bhaskar: This is to thank you for you note below - and to hope that we can keep your ocean-pertinent observations on the recent EPA document alive for further discussion. My interest in this oceans topic relates to biochar - almost always land-based. I have been hopeful that the 50% of global photosynthesis that is ocean based could also be put into the CDR column of geoengineering options. The obvious method should be the same as for land-based biomass - that is: harvest, pyrolyze (with capture of energy-valuable gases) and placement of a resultant char in the ground - likely able to last for millennia with major ag benefits. Placing ocean-based char back into the ocean would seem to have many fewer productivity benefits than placing it on land. So, could the use of ocean-based resources as a CDR mechanism still leave the oceans better off? Besides CDR and the several advantages associated with land-based biochar, the advantages of an ocean-based biochar should include returning dead zones (both freshwater and ocean) to productive use. Just as with land-based harvesting, should it be possible to gain food value and only use a waste bio-product for the biochar? Presumably, there should always be a net energy output benefit. Two obvious economic problems with this option (which I have not seen at all in geoengineering print) are costs of harvesting and de-watering. It is not clear whether the harvesting of ocean biomass is worse in a biodiversity sense than land-based biomass. But if one concentrated on problem blooms - at least at first to check on the economics - the positives should outweigh the negatives. The issue of de-watering might be handled by using HTC (Hydro-Thermal Carbonization), which also is exothermic and preserves almost 100 % (not 50%) of the bio-carbon for sequestration. Maybe we can find ways to use that 200 oC hot water? Maybe use for water desalination? I believe that you have been emphasizing harvesting the biota on shore - using added micro-nutrients. But I don't believe that you have putting this in the category of carbon-negativity. True? Could your approach work for production of carbon - negative biochar as well? Could your system be modified to work (in-situ) on very harmful blooms? Do you have favorite references on this topic of harvesting water-based biomass (for CDR or any purpose)? What are yours (anyone's) thought on an ocean-biochar possibility? Again, thanks for noting the absence of ocean based climate indicators in the EPA (or anyone's?) work. Ron - Original Message - From: M V Bhaskar bhaskarmv...@gmail.com To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Cc: Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com, nua...@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2012 7:11:00 PM Subject: [geo] Re: New EPA report Diatom biomass is not one of the indicators listed by EPA, this is rather unfortunate. There is ample evidence that Diatom Algae are declining and other algae increasing. Diatoms grow better in winter and spring and other algae in summer and autumn, so warmer water is one of the reason for increase in 'algal' blooms of cyanobacteria and dinoflagellates. Some of the indicators are - • Ragweed Pollen Season • Length of Growing Season • Leaf and Bloom Dates All these relate to plants on land, growth of phytoplankton / algae in water is not listed as an indicator, though about 50% of photosynthesis on Earth takes place in water. The time when bloom of Diatoms / Cyanobacteria start in Spring / Summer, the intensity of bloom, the number of days it lasts, etc. are all indicators of the climate and have an impact on the climate. In general Diatoms are good for the climate and Cyanobacteria and Dinoflagellates are bad. A few report about Climate change and algae - http://phys.org/news/2012-09-climate-algal-blooms-dead-zones.html (Phys.org)—Climate change is expected to increase the frequency of intense spring rain storms in the Great Lakes region throughout this century and will likely add to the number of harmful algal blooms and dead zones in Lake Erie, unless additional conservation actions are taken, according to a University of Michigan aquatic ecologist. http://www.cop.noaa.gov/stressors/extremeevents/hab/current/CC_habs.aspx How is Climate Change Affecting HABs Today? Recent data shows that unusual or unprecedented algal blooms have been linked to climate anomalies (e.g., Belgrano et al. 1999, Skjodal and Dundas 1991, Cloern et al. 2006, Moore et al. 2009). Further, rising sea surface temperatures have been associated with increases in dinoflagellates (many HAB species are dinoflagellates) in the North Atlantic, North Sea, and Baltic Sea and with an earlier appearance of dinoflagellates in the seasonal cycle (reviewed by Dale et al. 2006). Evidence also indicates that climate warming may benefit some species of harmful cyanobacteria (both freshwater and
Re: [geo] Re: New EPA report
Bhaskar and list There is still a good bit I am not understanding, so I would appreciate some citations. But the main one I am not understanding is in the bolded two words in this pair of your sentences: When Diatoms are consumed by zooplankton and fish the oxygen level increases, since zooplankton and fish consume less oxygen than bacteria. That is why Diatoms are oxygen positive and carbon negative and other algae may be oxygen negative and carbon positive. Can you add something quantitative about the magnitude o f your added proposed carbon negativity? A citation I can look up? Ron - Original Message - From: Bhaskar M V bhaskarmv...@gmail.com To: rongretlar...@comcast.net Cc: Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2012 7:11:04 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: New EPA report Ron My support for Ocean Fertilization is to secure maximum benefit with minimum intervention. That is why we are opposing 'harvesting' of Diatoms. The diatoms that grow should either be consumed by fish or fall to ocean bed. You have noted - Two obvious economic problems with this option (which I have not seen at all in geoengineering print) are costs of harvesting and de-watering. The only reason why biofuel from algae is not yet being produced on a large scale is the cost of harvesting and de-watering. That is why we are advocating use of Diatoms as fish feed and not as a biofuel source. Zooplankton and fish have developed the mechanism to 'harvest' algae over millions of years and they do a very good job. Mere cultivation of Diatom algae and allowing them to be consumed by fish will solve the Dead Zone problem. When other algae bloom, they die and decompose, since they are not consumed by fish. The oxygen consumption by the bacteria that decompose the dead phytoplankton reduces the dissolved oxygen level. When Diatoms are consumed by zooplankton and fish the oxygen level increases, since zooplankton and fish consume less oxygen than bacteria. That is why Diatoms are oxygen positive and carbon negative and other algae may be oxygen negative and carbon positive. You wrote - I believe that you have been emphasizing harvesting the biota on shore - using added micro-nutrients. I don't know how or why you have got this idea, I have always stated that we do NOT harvest the Diatoms that we grow in WATER by adding micro nutrients. regards Bhaskar On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 6:36 AM, rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote: Bhaskar: This is to thank you for you note below - and to hope that we can keep your ocean-pertinent observations on the recent EPA document alive for further discussion. My interest in this oceans topic relates to biochar - almost always land-based. I have been hopeful that the 50% of global photosynthesis that is ocean based could also be put into the CDR column of geoengineering options. The obvious method should be the same as for land-based biomass - that is: harvest, pyrolyze (with capture of energy-valuable gases) and placement of a resultant char in the ground - likely able to last for millennia with major ag benefits. Placing ocean-based char back into the ocean would seem to have many fewer productivity benefits than placing it on land. So, could the use of ocean-based resources as a CDR mechanism still leave the oceans better off? Besides CDR and the several advantages associated with land-based biochar, the advantages of an ocean-based biochar should include returning dead zones (both freshwater and ocean) to productive use. Just as with land-based harvesting, should it be possible to gain food value and only use a waste bio-product for the biochar? Presumably, there should always be a net energy output benefit. Two obvious economic problems with this option (which I have not seen at all in geoengineering print) are costs of harvesting and de-watering. It is not clear whether the harvesting of ocean biomass is worse in a biodiversity sense than land-based biomass. But if one concentrated on problem blooms - at least at first to check on the economics - the positives should outweigh the negatives. The issue of de-watering might be handled by using HTC (Hydro-Thermal Carbonization), which also is exothermic and preserves almost 100 % (not 50%) of the bio-carbon for sequestration. Maybe we can find ways to use that 200 oC hot water? Maybe use for water desalination? I believe that you have been emphasizing harvesting the biota on shore - using added micro-nutrients. But I don't believe that you have putting this in the category of carbon-negativity. True? Could your approach work for production of carbon - negative biochar as well? Could your system be modified to work (in-situ) on very harmful blooms? Do you have favorite references on this topic of harvesting water-based biomass (for CDR or any purpose)? What are yours (anyone's) thought on an
Re: [geo] Re: Congressional Ctte Geoengineering I - Assessing the Implications of Large-Scale Climate Intervention on YouTube
Russell and list: Perhaps your comment was meant to wonder why we are being told of this three years later by Andrew. In Andrew's defense, let me note several other factors: a. This (Nov. 5, 2009) was just put up a few days ago by a Mr. Jim Lee. b. Looking at this will lead you to two more hearing videos at the same Committee in the 2010 time period (February 04 and March 18, 2010). Several members of this list gave testimony. c. We may not see any other hearings for 2 more years - as the three earlier ones were held in a Democratic House. (There was one similar hearing in the Democratic -controlled Senate last August.) Perhaps if we talked more about the value of Congressional Hearings (I think they are valuable - but am biased because I worked for this Committee at one time) we might see one sooner . I don't believe this list has discussed these hearings. d. I listened only to a bit of each witness, but think there was nothing on albedo modification and of course nothing on bright water.. More important to my own interests, I rarely heard the words carbon dioxide removal (CDR), and nothing on the topic of biochar. (Can anyone point me to that topic in any legislative hearings? ) e. As I followed this thread, I learned that Mr. Jim Lee is clearly opposed to geoengineering. I could find no comments by him on biochar, but he endorsed work by E.T.C. - which group has been opposed to biochar (relying only on the research by one other group. I am sorry to report that Mr. Lee is apt to be quite active and influential in opposing all parts of geoengineering. He has a big site. Ron - Original Message - From: Russell Seitz russellse...@gmail.com To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 8, 2012 11:45:38 AM Subject: [geo] Re: Congressional Ctte Geoengineering I - Assessing the Implications of Large-Scale Climate Intervention on YouTube This is three years old ! On Friday, December 7, 2012 11:52:16 PM UTC-5, andrewjlockley wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo3CpJhlyWUfeature=youtube_gdata_player Congressional Ctte Geoengineering I - Assessing the Implications of Large-Scale Climate Intervention on YouTube -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/d49wmL2c2NAJ . To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] ISU researchers explore the effects of biochar on downstream ecosystems
Andrew etal Thanks for catching this interesting news release. The part of most interest to me was this fifth paragraph: “Biochar has been promoted as a win-win-win solution,” Harpole said. “You get energy, you improve soil conditions and increase crop yield.” I will try to alert these researchers at one of the premier biochar-research centers (ISU) on the fourth win (carbon negativity) - which is of prime interest to this list. My guesses are that these researchers will find a) that fugitive char will be a small amount, and b) any fugitive char will increase growth anywhere it lands - and generally this char will positively affect both annuals and perennials, which can in turn be harvested for increasing amounts of char. Ron - Original Message - From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2012 7:48:18 PM Subject: [geo] ISU researchers explore the effects of biochar on downstream ecosystems http://m.iowastatedaily.com/mobile/news/article_10b8f6e4-3ca4-11e2-9dcb-001a4bcf887a.html ISU researchers explore the effects of biochar on downstream ecosystems By Eric Debner, eric.deb...@iowastatedaily.com | Posted: Monday, December 3, 2012 12:00 am Biochar may be a next-generation soil amendment utilized by farmers to increase agricultural productivity. While this biorenewable solution has potential for commercial use in the near future, there are aspects and variables that could be further explored to improve the capabilities of biochar.Lori Biederman, adjunct assistant professor of ecology, evolution and organismal biology, and William Harpole, assistant professor of ecology, evolution and organismal biology, received a grant from the ISU-based Leopold Center for Sustainable Agriculture to experiment and research the effects of biochar on a restored native prairie plant species in Western Iowa. Harpole said the experiment will explore the downstream ecosystem impacts of biochar on native plants and biodiversity.Biochar is a byproduct of a process called pyrolysis, that essentially turns biomass, such as corn stover and switchgrass, into a renewable source of energy. Harpole said biochar can be used as an additive to help strengthen soils by adding water retention properties and nutrients such as phosphorus, which helps farmers increase their crop yields.“Biochar has been promoted as a win-win-win solution,” Harpole said. “You get energy, you improve soil conditions and increase crop yield.”Harpole said this ideal scenario creates a fourth question: the environment. Is that a win, or is that a loss?When applied to the landscape, Harpole said biochar is susceptible to erosion and win that can carry it into neighboring ecosystems. Harpole said some studies have shown that up to 50 percent of biochar can be transported away through erosion or wind.“We have to be careful of protecting our buffers and understanding how biochar affects the perennial systems that are right next door to annual crops,” Biederman said. “[Biochar] blows everywhere, and can very easily end up in places where it was not applied.”Biederman and Harpole conducted a process called meta analysis in which they collected all the published information on biochar experiments and put it into a data table. Harpole said most of the data showed biochar has, on average, positive effects with plant growth.“It also points out what we don’t know,” Harpole said. “We don’t have much information about the impacts of [biochar] on downstream ecosystems.”Harpole said the effects of biochar could play out in a number of ways. If biochar is beneficial for agricultural systems, then it could also benefit natural systems. Harpole said an alternative situation is biochar could negatively affect native plant species but positively affect exotic weedy species.One aspect of downstream ecosystems that Biederman and Harpole want to explore is the effect biochar has on perennial plants compared with annual plants. Biederman said perennials are plants that persist for many growing seasons while annuals perform their entire life cycle, from seed to flower to seed, within a single growing season. Biederman said annual plants typically fared better in biochar-treated soils than perennials.“There’s something about being a perennial and annual plant that makes them react differently to biochar,” Biederman said. It is important for researchers to investigate all aspects of biochar before applying it onto the field, to better understand how biochar affects the perennial systems right next door to annual crops.“More information helps us make better decisions about how we use our landscape and what we’re trying to conserve and promote,” Harpole said. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to
Re: [geo] Mooney, Pat; et al. (2012): Darken the sky and whiten the earth
List - with ccs to Greg and others (including at ETC) I write mainly to bring the CDR technologies into our discussion about ETC's views. I hope the following will also be considered as an input into the ethics/philosophy discussion that is taking place simultaneously on this list. I view the immediate support for biochar implementation (more than experimentation, which is occurring in hundreds of locations today, mostly for postive ethical reasons) as something for philosophers to support, rather than question. CDR directly attacks the acknowledged root problem, which will not be solved without action. Why have we seen so little support from Philosophers for activities that remove atmospheric carbon? Are there differences for biochar, which [essentially alone] a) supplies needed renewable (not fossil) energy (both biopower and biofuels), b) provides benefits for at least centuries (is an investment, not a cost), and c) provides positive benefits much wider than the direct sequestration impact (ie reduced fertilizer and irrigation needs, reduced N2O and CH4 release, replacement of needed nutrients, rural economic development, improved food supply and biodiversity, jobs, etc, etc). Below I add my rebuttals to the list of seven (all negative) characteristics that Greg has kindly provided as the nub of the ETC anti-geoengineering report. I should note that ETC has itself barely analyzed biochar, instead relying on BFW, whose slanted views are usually what we see re biochar for all the seven reasons given below. I welcome debate, especially from ETC and BFW, on what I have written. See 7 inserts below, all in bold, preceded by my initials. - Original Message - From: RAU greg gh...@sbcglobal.net To: andrew lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com, geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Cc: di...@etcgroup.org???, moo...@etcgroup.org Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 9:35:56 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Mooney, Pat; et al. (2012): Darken the sky and whiten the earth A more direct link here: http://whatnext.org/resources/Publications/Volume-III/Single-articles/wnv3_etcgroup_144.pdf I thought these nuggets were especially revealing: Why is geoengineering unacceptable? 1. It can’t be tested: No experimental phase is possible – in order to have a noticeable impact on the climate, geoengineering must be deployed on a massive scale. ‘Experiments’ or ‘field trials’ are actually equivalent to deployment in the real world because small- scale tests do not deliver the data on climate effects. For people and biodiversity, impacts would likely be massive as well as immediate and possibly irreversible. RWL1: Biochar testing experiments are taking place in many dozens of countries. They are delivering valuable data on climate effects. The biochar impacts are predominantly positive and locally, if not yet globally, massive. ETC score #1 here re biochar is an F. 2. It is unequal: OECD governments and powerful corporations (who have denied or ignored climate change and its impact on biodiversity for decades but are responsible, historically, for most greenhouse gas emissions) are the ones with the budgets and the technology to execute this gamble with Gaia.There is no reason to trust that they will have the interests of more vulnerable states or peoples in mind. There are several examples provided in Geopiracy: The Case Against Geoengineering (ETC Group, 2010: 31-32). 228 Development Dialogue September 2012 | What Next Volume III | Climate, Development and Equity RWL2 : B iochar maybe even favors developing countries (which have so ils need ing biochar - a s well as the potential for much larger food and biomas s harvests ). I agree with the first sentence, but not the second, nor much in the Piracy citation. ETC's score # 2 here re biochar is a D. 3. It is unilateral: Although all geoengineering proposals run into tens of billions of dollars, for rich nations and billionaires, they could be considered relatively cheap (and simple) to deploy.The capacity to act will be within the hands of those who possess the technology (individuals, corporations, states) in the next few years. It is urgent that multilateral measures are taken to ban any unilat- eral attempts to manipulate Earth ecosystems RWL3. ETC is talking here only of a few SRM approaches that might be considered cheap (although they say in the text that they are talking of CDR as well as SRM). There is nothing unilateral about biochar - some of the world's poorest are doing some of the best work now - and have, beginning thousands of years ago with practice of Terra Preta. Re ETC 's last sentence, there is zero need to protect biochar from unilateral manipulation; biochar is inherently multilateral. ETC's score #3 is D, from a biochar perspect ive . 4. It is risky and unpredictable: The side effects of geoengineered interventions are unknown. Geoengineering could
Re: [geo] Bioenergy with Carbon Capture: Climate Saviour or Dangerous Hype
Andrew, cc list I have just finished reading (closer to skimming) the new BFW report on BECCS that you have identified today/below. For any geo list members who are defenders of BECCS, I would love to hear your reactions - as the BFW group has similarly (since 2007) slammed biochar. I have fought with them regularly on biochar - as not doing good/honest analysis. Here I find less to criticize them for as regards CCS and EOR. BECCS is better for me, but not much. This paper equally slams all of geoengineering - but the detail here is mostly on CCS and bioenergy. Again, I hope someone closer to CCS will take them on. Of course I'd love also to hear more on their handling the biomass side as well, where I think they are on very weak grounds. Ron - Original Message - From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 1:23:17 AM Subject: [geo] Bioenergy with Carbon Capture: Climate Saviour or Dangerous Hype Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Sequestration: Climate Saviour or Dangerous Hype? Download at: http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/2012/beccs_report Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage (BECCS) is being promoted as ‘carbon negative’, i.e. as a way of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and as such is proposed for “climate geoengineering”. It is referred to by many, even within IPCC, as having great potential, “essential” to achieving emissions reduction targets. Yet, on closer examination, BECCS is largely serving as a means of perpetuating fossil fuel industries. Current projects largely use CO2 captured from bioenergy facilities, mostly ethanol refineries, for “enhanced oil recovery” to extend production from depleted oil wells. The favorable economics of this practice make this form of BECCS an “early mover” to facilitate technology development of CCS for application to fossil fuels, considered a lifeline to the future for coal (so called “clean coal”). IN addition to the huge negative impacts associated with all technologies that require massive and ongoing supplies of plant biomass, storage of carbon underground presents additional new, serious risks and the potential for a new form of “underground” land grabbing as demand for storage sites increases. Some communities have already resisted having their lands injected with CO2. Based on the clearly false assumption that all bioenergy processes are “carbon neutral” and that capture and storage will render them “carbon negative”, BECCS is deeply rooted in false logic and dangerous misrepresentation. This report examines the theory behind BECCS, the likely impacts should such a technology be scaled up and the technical and economic barriers and provides a summary of BECCS-related investments, subsidies and policies. Rachel Smolker Biofuelwatch/Energy Justice Network rsmol...@riseup.net skype: Rachel Smolker -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: Oceans? RE: [geo] Natural land air capture nutrient limited
Mark etal See below. - Original Message - From: markcap...@podenergy.org To: rongretlar...@comcast.net Cc: r...@llnl.gov, geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, October 5, 2012 6:13:36 AM Subject: RE: Oceans? RE: [geo] Natural land air capture nutrient limited Ron (cc Greg, list), Perhaps biochar is another C-separation process for biochar Ocean Macroalgal Afforestation (as opposed to anaerobic digestion OMA). There may be more processes. [RWL: For sure, but not many . Biochar is the only one I know of that provides out-year continuing and growing annual carbon negative benefits. ] Any process which separates the energy (carbon hydrogen) from the plant nutrients (organic nitrogen, phosphorous, iron, and others) and then recycles them to grow more macroalgae (while selling the renewable energy) can be sustained over sufficiently large earth surface area. Microbial digestion is the most common process in nature. [RWL: Maybe. But we sure don't want that methane in the atmosphere. And fires have been and are responsible for a lot of carbon in soil (as a common process). I don't know the optimum, but I believe there are many sites where we want to remove some excess nutrients, rather than recycle them. Char can also capture those excesses before they are ever making it to the oceans. I haven't gotten into ocean albedo effects when converting large ocean areas from nutrient deserts to macroalgal forests. [RWL: Me either. Hope we can hear from albedo authorities.] I hope you will look into the firm down the road from you who is making major waves in the rapidly changing biochar industry (Cool Planet Energy Systems). They may have looked already at all these issues, since they have a very aggressive introduction plan. Ron ] Mark E. Capron, PE Oxnard, California www.PODenergy.org Original Message Subject: Re: Oceans? RE: [geo] Natural land air capture nutrient limited From: rongretlar...@comcast.net Date: Wed, October 03, 2012 4:59 pm To: markcap...@podenergy.org Cc: r...@llnl.gov , geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Mark (cc Greg, list) See insert responses below. - Original Message - From: markcap...@podenergy.org To: rongretlar...@comcast.net Cc: r...@llnl.gov , geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 3, 2012 5:59:17 AM Subject: RE: Oceans? RE: [geo] Natural land air capture nutrient limited Ron, How perfect is the nutrient recycling when you convert macroalgae to charcol? [RWL: A good question that I am not qualified to answer. One thought is that it seems the present ocean has considerable excess nitrogen and phosphorus, and that land-based agriculture and forestry need these in large amounts. So, to the extent that conversion of the macroalgae is to char which ends up on land, recycling these two excess nutrients out of the ocean - would seem to be entirely desirable. A second train of thought going around the biochar community is that coupling char with appropriate sea-salts will add to biochar's value. I can conceive, but this needs checking, that char from ocean-based macroalgae would find favor among biochar users because of a larger amount of many micronutrients. Is there any energy left over after you lift the macroalgae (and some water) out of the water and remove all the water from the macroalgae in order to make char? [RWL: Again, I do not claim to be expert on this. But I have seen the concept of macroalgae being used for conversion to biofuels since the mid-'70s. Indeed in one major 100% RE study from that period (MITRE or SRI?) most of the world fuel liquid market was projected to come from macroalgae. Sure, micanthus, sugar cane, etc are woodier, but the main issue is the photosynthetic carbon productivity (kg C/sqm-yr). In my experience, pyrolysis can handle anything that biogas can. I think the Cool Planet pyrolysis approach gives a larger total of valuable C product - as there is little CO2 production. I hope we can hear from anyone thinking the idea of macroalgae cannot be both a major energy and sequestration option. Ron] Mark blockquote Original Message Subject: Re: Oceans? RE: [geo] Natural land air capture nutrient limited From: rongretlar...@comcast.net Date: Tue, October 02, 2012 9:32 pm To: markcap...@podenergy.org Cc: r...@llnl.gov , geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Mark, Greg, List I like your idea and will start looking up the macroalgae citations found at your site. But I suggest (as did Greg Rau) that you investigate the biochar alternative to your proposed conversion through biogas. I see three main benefits to biochar over your CCS option as it impacts the Carbon Dioxide Removal portion of this list. First is that liquifying and deep-sequestering the accompanying CO2 seems unlikely to be ready soon - and will
Re: Oceans? RE: [geo] Natural land air capture nutrient limited
Mark, Greg, List I like your idea and will start looking up the macroalgae citations found at your site. But I suggest (as did Greg Rau) that you investigate the biochar alternative to your proposed conversion through biogas. I see three main benefits to biochar over your CCS option as it impacts the Carbon Dioxide Removal portion of this list. First is that liquifying and deep-sequestering the accompanying CO2 seems unlikely to be ready soon - and will always be pretty expensive (especially at small scale). More importantly, char obtained from pyrolyzing your macroalgae will provide out-year benefits from up to millenia. Lastly, natural gas transport to the mainland seems likely to involve considerable expense - more so than moving a solid or liquid. Your possible project in Fiji could have a valuable char side immediately, while a BECCS approach seems likely to be many years away - so you will be foregoing the promising sequestration potential of ocean biomass that Greg is looking for. A good place to see the current status of pyrolysis and biochar at what seems to be the leading commercial biochar (and biofuel?) entity is only 20 miles east of you. Look at (I have no connection): www.coolplanetbiofuels.com Ron - Original Message - From: markcap...@podenergy.org To: r...@llnl.gov, geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2012 7:05:42 PM Subject: Oceans? RE: [geo] Natural land air capture nutrient limited Greg, Another solution is rapid nutrient recycling, as happens in the Ocean Afforestation ecosystem. Deploying the Ocean Afforestation ecosystem over 4% of the world's ocean surface would imply cycling about 16 times the global artificial nitrogen plant fertilizer production. The recycle will happen over distances of a few kilometers and time scales of a few months. The ecosystem would also be cycling proportional masses of all the other nutrients needed to grow macroalgae. Perhaps more important than nutrients, land plants are limited by fresh water and the timing of fresh water (no good to rain in August if the corn kernel silks lacked water to deploy July). Mark E. Capron, PE Oxnard, California www.PODenergy.org Original Message Subject: [geo] Natural land air capture nutrient limited From: Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov Date: Tue, October 02, 2012 10:53 am To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Possible solutions: fertilize genetically select/modify reduce CO2 recycling (CROPS, Biochar) all of the above. Greg Nature | News Earth’s carbon sink downsized Abundance of soil nutrients a limiting factor in plants’ ability to soak up carbon dioxide. • Amanda Mascarelli 01 October 2012 Plants need enriched soil to make use of increasing carbon dioxide. As carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere continue to climb, most climate models project that the world’s oceans and trees will keep soaking up more than half of the extra CO 2 . But researchers report this week that the capacity for land plants to absorb more CO 2 will be much lower than previously thought, owing to limitations in soil nutrients 1 . Because plants take up CO 2 during photosynthesis, it has long been assumed that they will provide a large carbon ‘sink’ to help offset increases in atmospheric CO 2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Some scientists have argued that the increase might even be good for plants, which would presumably grow faster and mop up even more CO 2 . Climate models estimate that the world’s oceans have absorbed about 30% of the CO 2 that humans have released in the past 150 years and that land plants have gulped another 30%. But the latest study, by ecologists Peter Reich and Sarah Hobbie at the University of Minnesota in St Paul, suggests that estimates of how much CO 2 land plants can use are far too optimistic. Plants also need soil nutrients, such as nitrogen and phosphorus, to grow. But few studies have tested whether soils contain enough of these nutrients to fuel growth in proportion to rising CO 2 . “This work addresses a question that’s been out there for decades,” says Bruce Hungate, an ecosystem scientist at Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff. It's a hard question to answer, because it takes a long time to see how ecosystem carbon and nitrogen cycles change. Long-term growth In a 13-year field experiment on 296 open-air plots, the researchers grew perennial grassland species under ambient and elevated concentrations of both atmospheric CO 2 and soil nitrogen. “Rather than building a time machine and comparing how ecosystems behave in 2070 — which is hard to do — we basically create the atmosphere of 2070 above our plots,” says Reich. Reich and Hobbie found that from 2001 to 2010, grasses growing under heightened CO 2 levels grew only half as much in untreated as in enriched nitrogen soils. Researchers do not have a
Re: Oceans? RE: [geo] Natural land air capture nutrient limited
Mark (cc Greg, list) See insert responses below. - Original Message - From: markcap...@podenergy.org To: rongretlar...@comcast.net Cc: r...@llnl.gov, geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 3, 2012 5:59:17 AM Subject: RE: Oceans? RE: [geo] Natural land air capture nutrient limited Ron, How perfect is the nutrient recycling when you convert macroalgae to charcol? [RWL: A good question that I am not qualified to answer. One thought is that it seems the present ocean has considerable excess nitrogen and phosphorus, and that land-based agriculture and forestry need these in large amounts. So, to the extent that conversion of the macroalgae is to char which ends up on land, recycling these two excess nutrients out of the ocean - would seem to be entirely desirable. A second train of thought going around the biochar community is that coupling char with appropriate sea-salts will add to biochar's value. I can conceive, but this needs checking, that char from ocean-based macroalgae would find favor among biochar users because of a larger amount of many micronutrients. Is there any energy left over after you lift the macroalgae (and some water) out of the water and remove all the water from the macroalgae in order to make char? [RWL: Again, I do not claim to be expert on this. But I have seen the concept of macroalgae being used for conversion to biofuels since the mid-'70s. Indeed in one major 100% RE study from that period (MITRE or SRI?) most of the world fuel liquid market was projected to come from macroalgae. Sure, micanthus, sugar cane, etc are woodier, but the main issue is the photosynthetic carbon productivity (kg C/sqm-yr). In my experience, pyrolysis can handle anything that biogas can. I think the Cool Planet pyrolysis approach gives a larger total of valuable C product - as there is little CO2 production. I hope we can hear from anyone thinking the idea of macroalgae cannot be both a major energy and sequestration option. Ron] Mark Original Message Subject: Re: Oceans? RE: [geo] Natural land air capture nutrient limited From: rongretlar...@comcast.net Date: Tue, October 02, 2012 9:32 pm To: markcap...@podenergy.org Cc: r...@llnl.gov , geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Mark, Greg, List I like your idea and will start looking up the macroalgae citations found at your site. But I suggest (as did Greg Rau) that you investigate the biochar alternative to your proposed conversion through biogas. I see three main benefits to biochar over your CCS option as it impacts the Carbon Dioxide Removal portion of this list. First is that liquifying and deep-sequestering the accompanying CO2 seems unlikely to be ready soon - and will always be pretty expensive (especially at small scale). More importantly, char obtained from pyrolyzing your macroalgae will provide out-year benefits from up to millenia. Lastly, natural gas transport to the mainland seems likely to involve considerable expense - more so than moving a solid or liquid. Your possible project in Fiji could have a valuable char side immediately, while a BECCS approach seems likely to be many years away - so you will be foregoing the promising sequestration potential of ocean biomass that Greg is looking for. A good place to see the current status of pyrolysis and biochar at what seems to be the leading commercial biochar (and biofuel?) entity is only 20 miles east of you. Look at (I have no connection): www.coolplanetbiofuels.com Ron - Original Message - From: markcap...@podenergy.org To: r...@llnl.gov , geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2012 7:05:42 PM Subject: Oceans? RE: [geo] Natural land air capture nutrient limited Greg, Another solution is rapid nutrient recycling, as happens in the Ocean Afforestation ecosystem. Deploying the Ocean Afforestation ecosystem over 4% of the world's ocean surface would imply cycling about 16 times the global artificial nitrogen plant fertilizer production. The recycle will happen over distances of a few kilometers and time scales of a few months. The ecosystem would also be cycling proportional masses of all the other nutrients needed to grow macroalgae. Perhaps more important than nutrients, land plants are limited by fresh water and the timing of fresh water (no good to rain in August if the corn kernel silks lacked water to deploy July). Mark E. Capron, PE Oxnard, California www.PODenergy.org blockquote Original Message Subject: [geo] Natural land air capture nutrient limited From: Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov Date: Tue, October 02, 2012 10:53 am To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Possible solutions: fertilize genetically select/modify reduce CO2 recycling (CROPS, Biochar) all of the above. Greg Nature | News Earth’s carbon sink
Re: [geo] Re: nuclear winter, from the archives
Andrew and list (cc Andy Rivkin) This is to urge replacement of your controlled burns, bulldozers, etc. in your final sentence, Or would management of fire on the ground with controlled burns, bulldozers, etc . be better? with biopower, biofuels, biochar , etc : Controlled burns and bulldozers are far from optimum approaches. The subject of precautionary removal (thinning and perodic, appropriate-width fire breaks) is often mentioned in biochar literature. The intent is to show this as a way to up the often-too-low projections. The main additional rationales for precautionary action I have seen are not smoke minimization, but rather lowering property damage and insurance costs. If we are at all interested in AGW, we need to both be replacing fossil fuels and practicing CDR - and must think about state and national forest land that is rarely managed for either carbon neutral or carbon negative purposes. This is not in current national planning in the US. In Colorado, there is a great deal of beetle killed pne, which is sure to cause some future renewed interest in precautionary action. Just a few months ago, more than 350 homes and $110 million were lost on the outskirts of Ft. Collins, Colorado. Thinking about these near-urban regions (such as Vail and Aspen) in fire minimization terms is a must - limited now by not having figuring out how to pay for it. Carbon credits could make some of the difference. But even better is the development of new technologies that can bring cost effective conversions to the resource, rather than the more expensive converse. I am particularly thinking of the brand-new technology for a drop-in gasoline (with equal biochar production) seen at www.coolplanetbiofuels.com . Smoke also will be reduced and that will be much appreciated - but there are many other reasons to think harder about forest and fire management.. Ron From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com To: Andrew Revkin rev...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2012 1:17:30 AM Subject: [geo] Re: nuclear winter, from the archives One interesting aspect of this discussion is effect on global climate of catastrophic forest fires Vizy et al, and other authors, have looked at biome scale wildfires, notably in the Amazon region. These have the possibility to affect global climate severely, and potentially (I suggest) induce a sudden disruption to the hydro cycle that may trigger further wild fires. This would appear a sensible target for geoengineering, and 'de smoking' could be a new sub discipline. Does anyone have any ideas? Would cloud seeding or ionization be possibilities worth investigating? Or would management of fire on the ground with controlled burns, bulldozers, etc. be better? A On Sep 26, 2012 4:59 AM, Andrew Revkin rev...@gmail.com wrote: Just in case it's of interest to those pondering nuclear winter in relation to the issues at hand, here's what may be a useful benchmark - my 1985 cover story on nuclear winter science - first time it's been digitized. Some familiar names quoted. http://www.slideshare.net/Revkin/hard-facts-about-nuclear-winter-1985 -- _ ANDREW C. REVKIN Dot Earth blogger, The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/dotearth Senior Fellow, Pace Acad. for Applied Env. Studies Cell: 914-441-5556 Fax: 914-989-8009 Twitter: @revkin Skype: Andrew.Revkin -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] Geo-engineering and Arctic mentioned here.
Drs. Gordon, Bhaskar and list: 1. This is first to follow up on Dr. Bhaskar's request to Dr. Gordon, hoping that he will answer his yesterday-question below asking you to explain the : variety of possibilities to explain the warming ... [I have highlighted it and 3 others below] I believe that you are on a list where any non-CO2 response will be quite clinically rebutted. I urge you to check out those possibilities at www.skepticalscience.com before giving them here. I hope you can then join the believer (CO2-causation) group in as the only one that I find can't be readily rebutted (as done at the several sites given below).. 2. But mostly I am asking a new question - to give a citation for your earlier sentence below : The global increase has been about 5 degrees C for the last 10,000 years or about 0.0005 per year and 0.05 degrees for the past 100 yea rs I follow a lot of denier literature and have never seen this one - I doubt it can even be found at skeptical science. Yes, one can find a lower temperature roughly10,000 years ago and probably of even greater than 5 degrees C. But at a slightly later time, it was higher than today and has been mostly declining until the last century or so. The same decline (but faster slope) is seen in all of the 100,000 year Milankovitcch cycles. To take recent high temperatures and a lower value 10,000 years ago to find an average positive slope is an approximation beyond mathematical credibility. For my side of the story, I ask you to read : a. http://www.skepticalscience.com/heading-into-new-little-ice-age.htm (has considerable data showing declining temperatures due to Milankovitch cycles b. A figure at comment #217 will be recognized as the Hockey stick at http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=5t=258a=53 All declining temperatures until recently - and these not as rapidly declining as in ALL earlier cycles. c. Excellent set of response comments by Bill Ruddiman to his also excellent original short paper at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/04/an-emerging-view-on-early-land-use/ I saw only a few denier comments there. d. My Geoengineering (CDR; biochar) reason for being interested in this topic is explicated by Erich Knight at comments #69, 90, 95 at http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/04/an-emerging-view-on-early-land-use/comment-page-2/#comments Again, I ask for a citation for your view of this same time period. 3. If you find you have erred on the above two points, I'd be interested in knowing if you still stand by your two terms following the two repeated above: ...it is sheer stupidity in the extreme. and CO2 freaks 4. I have also highlighted below a few of your Friday-remarks - and wonder if you care to take any of those back as well? Ron - Original Message - From: M V Bhaskar bhaskarmv...@gmail.com To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Cc: M V Bhaskar bhaskarmv...@gmail.com, rev...@gmail.com, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu, Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2012 9:59:11 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Geo-engineering and Arctic mentioned here. Gene You said ... There are a variety of possibilities to explain the warming ... What are they? The increase, over the past 200 years, in burning of fossil fuel, CO2 level of atmosphere and oceans and rise in temperature are very well documented and the correlation is very high. You seem to be arguing against yourself. As per your own statement natural warming is only 0.0005 per year i.e., 0.05 degrees over 100 years. The actual increase in the past 100 years is about 0.8 degrees C, this is much more than the 0.05 degrees you mentioned. regards Bhaskar On Saturday, 22 September 2012 19:59:57 UTC+5:30, Gene wrote: Bhaskar: You are totally correct; I could not agree more. However, potential solutions depend on the cause. The global increase has been about 5 degrees C for the last 10,000 years or about 0.0005 per year and 0.05 degrees for the past 100 years. [RWL: Emphasis added here and below .] That gradual rise is not the current or nearterm cause or issue. There are warming and cooling cycles, several per 1000 years and we may be in a warming cycle that accounts for the current warming. We are also in a Malenkovich cycle. There are a variety of possibilities to explain the warming and CO2 may be only a minor player. The point is that it is warming and the strategy for controlling the warming needs to be worked out and proven so it can be implemented as necessary. To conclude it is CO2 and ALL we need to do is reduce CO2 concentration is not warranted; it is sheer stupidity in the extreme. We need a thermostat that works and only geoengineering can provide that. I am appalled that the CO2 freaks have been able to block the emergence of a serious geoengineering effort. -gene From: M V Bhaskar
Re: [geo] Tyndall center presentation on 4C future
List: 1. I found this 70+ slide Ppt by Kevin Anderson (the attachment to Andrew's posting about 14 hours ago) to be a most interesting presentation. It suffers by having no voice. I have not yet found when or where it was presented. In following up, I found that his (and Alice Bows') 2011 paper on same topics is free at:. http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/369/1934/20.full.pdf Also I found that a well-done 27 minute video (showing both him talking and the slides) from 2009 (cited in his Wiki article - as #6) is available at http://media.podcasts.ox.ac.uk/ouce/4degrees/session_10_1_anderson.mp4?CAMEFROM=moxacuk A similar 55 minute video (but with only slides and voice) from 2012 is at: http://vimeo.com/39555673 (newest and longest, so possibly a good place to start) 2. His argument consistently is that holding global temperature increase to 2 degrees is almost impossible - and that we certainly don't want 4 degrees, which we are heading for. Not at all encouraging - and he makes a convincing case on what is likely to be accomplished - based on past experience. He is an excellent presenter. 3. I have not looked at any of the above in great depth - but believe he barely discusses SRM. CDR was mentioned in one of the above - but not biochar. I read and heard almost no discussion on wind, solar PV, biomass, or other RE technologies. My tentative conclusion is that has underestimated how much longer the recent large annual growth rate of RE technologies can be continued. I believe the average annual growth rate for the Wind and Photovoltaics technologies for the past 5 years has been about 30% and 50%. Should those rates continue, we can certainly fill the energy bucket by 2030 or sooner. However, he discounts the ability to move as fast as 10% per year in reducing CO2 emissions. I think it can be larger if the need for an early CO2 peak is taken seriously. In the biochar area of CDR, I think that the price projections given at www.coolplanetbiofuels will provide even faster growth and a very short doubling time. They can start soon since the biofuel version can be identical to the fossil. Anderson has no discussion I think on land availability and productivity; his is a higher level modeling. 4. I like that much of these presentations are on the complexities of handling Annex-1 and non-Annex-1 countries differently. We need more like this. Ron - Original Message - From: RAU greg gh...@sbcglobal.net To: mmacc...@comcast.net, Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 16, 2012 12:58:32 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Tyndall center presentation on 4C future Andrew and Mike, Thanks for the recommendations. Without even trying the type of effort that is suggested, history will likely be very hard on today’s (and yesterday’s—covering a couple of decades) leaders. This would seem the root of the problem because the leaders (and the rest of us) won't be around to suffer the consequences (or reap the benefits) of present actions toward CO2. This begs the question how much are humans willing to sacrifice now for future generations? How much do we discount future consequences of present actions? Up until now the answer is alot. I'm not sure this can or will change any time soon, but it would be interesting the hear of any historical examples (or econ theory). Otherwise, as with pond scum, it looks like we are still stuck in the +2B year bio tradition of letting future generations fend for themselves. -Greg From: Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net To: Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Sun, September 16, 2012 9:50:16 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Tyndall center presentation on 4C future Re: [geo] Tyndall center presentation on 4C future As a follow-up to the disturbing (but forthright) Tyndall Center presentation, I’d suggest reading a plan for actually making the changes needed to make a significant difference in the climate change trajectory. My recommendation would be to read the book “World on the Edge: How to Prevent Environmental and Economic Collapse” by Lester R. Brown. It is available as a pdf file at http://www.earth-policy.org/images/uploads/book_files/wotebook.pdf Yes, a real challenge, but plausible. What is most needed is leadership and commitment, so at least we make a good try at limiting global warming and the associated problems he talks about, namely water resources, food, and soils. Without even trying the type of effort that is suggested, history will likely be very hard on today’s (and yesterday’s—covering a couple of decades) leaders. Mike MacCracken On 9/16/12 5:18 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: By way of climatic and political background, this may interest some members A -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to
Re: [geo] Comprehensive assessment of CDR - Friends of the Earth negatonnes report
Greg etal I agree that McLaren has helped move the dialog forward; he and FoE deserve our thanks. Of course, I think Biochar could move positively in all four displayed parameters displayed in the Figure 3 you recommend. In justification of my concern that Biochar is under-valued, I urge those interested in CDR comparisons to look at the co-product biofuels/Biochar technology promoted at www.coolplanetbiofuels.com Especially consider the concept of N100 fuels (equal parts carbon neutrality and carbon negativity) - which product is under test today in multiple vehicles.. I don't believe this company (going by the acronym CPB in Biochar circles) has been previously mentioned on this list. Even the possibility of this type of pyrolysis was mentioned in neither the McLaren nor Royal Society reports. CPB likely has more current funding and momentum than any other CDR approach - certainly much more than any other Biochar approach. I have heard of no plans to look into approval by any governmental body beyond the usual ASTM fuel standards. Ron - Original Message - From: Greg Rau r...@llnl.gov To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 11:47:07 AM Subject: RE: [geo] Comprehensive assessment of CDR - Friends of the Earth negatonnes report I second Andrew's recommendation. One can quibble with the technologies chosen, the capacity, cost, and readiness estimates (and the UK-centric focus). For example the capacity of carbonate and silicate weathering would appear to have been drastically underestimated considering that, baring some other human intervention, nearly all excess CO2 will eventually be consumed by this process (for $0). Nevertheless, the report provides a good framework for further analysis, refinement, and perhaps decision making. Figure 3 again begs the question: why would anyone be interested in DAC as a first step in air capture if cheaper and less leak prone high capacity methods are available? -Greg From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley [andrew.lock...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 5:22 AM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Comprehensive assessment of CDR - Friends of the Earth negatonnes report This open access PDF file is a comprehensive treatment of a range of CDR technologies http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/negatonnes.pdf The meat is about p30, where a simple graphic visually presents cost, readiness and capacity data. This is similar to the Royal Society report style of presentation. I'd strongly encourage people to at least look at this graphic A -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] Air capture: Modification of the Mg/DOBDC MOF with Amines to Enhance CO2 Adsorption from Ultradilute Gases
Greg: Thanks for the additional information. On the AMEG and Biochar-policy lists there has been quite a bit of discussion on combining olivine dust with biochar. The economics of olivine seem quite competitive if the transportation distance is not too large - but this is not my area . I hope your thread will be picked up by others thinking about how large and soon the cumulative CDR contributions can be. Ron - Original Message - From: Greg Rau r...@llnl.gov To: rongretlar...@comcast.net, geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2012 7:54:23 PM Subject: RE: [geo] Air capture: Modification of the Mg/DOBDC MOF with Amines to Enhance CO2 Adsorption from Ultradilute Gases As for the potential size of the tweaked fluxes, that would of course benefit from further RD. But speaking for enhanced mineral weathering angles, potentially all of anthro CO2 could be mitigated this way because if we do nothing this is the mechanism that will do the job over geologic time-scales, as evident in the geo record. So the capacity is there, the issue is then methods, cost, and impacts/benefits of accelerating this and by how much. Again, more RD needed. -Greg From: rongretlar...@comcast.net [rongretlar...@comcast.net] Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 8:41 PM To: Rau, Greg Cc: geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] Air capture: Modification of the Mg/DOBDC MOF with Amines to Enhance CO2 Adsorption from Ultradilute Gases Greg and list Thanks for the link reminder. I'll look into the ocean numbers more.. (I repeat that) I agree with all that you are saying about the large natural fluxes - and our ability to tweak them. I'd appreciate hearing anything quantitative about the potential size of the tweaked fluxes with timing and cost estimates (if you can share any), Ron From: Greg Rau r...@llnl.gov To: rongretlar...@comcast.net Cc: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 4:53:02 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Air capture: Modification of the Mg/DOBDC MOF with Amines to Enhance CO2 Adsorption from Ultradilute Gases Ron, IPCC list gross land and ocean CO2 influxes of 122.6 and 92.2 GT C/yr, respectively: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-3.html That's a total gross influx from the atmosphere (gross capture) of (122.6+92.2) x 44/12 = 788 GT CO2/yr. Granted, an almost equal amount of CO2 fluxes out of those systems, but even with this huge leakage enough is retained to account for the removal of 55-60% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. My point is that air capture is already a vital and free part of reducing anthropogenic CO2 and it's impacts (minus the ocean acidification part). So in the context of increasing net air capture, the obvious routes would be to figure out how to increase these gross influxes and/or decrease gross outfluxes. BECCS, CROPS, and biochar address the latter, OIF (and probably also biochar) addresses the former, while increased ocean alkalinity and mineral weathering could address both. I'm not saying theses are the only technologies but I am saying why bother with purely artificial and expensive air capture apparatus (that in the end produce risky molecular CO2), when all that is needed are relatively minor tweakings of existing global scale air capture/retention systems that safely store carbon in forms other than molecular CO2? Another interesting angle I recently came across is the electrochemical extraction of CO2 (and ocean acidity) from seawater: http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlepdf/2012/ee/c2ee03393c Assuming you could safely store or use the extracted CO2 (e.g., convert to ocean alkalinity via limestone scrubbing; DO NOT use for EOR), the net effect would be to alkalize and de-acidify seawater, beneficially stabilizing or elevating ocean pH, increasing air CO2 uptake, and stabilizing/increasing coral and shellfish growth, etc. The electricity cost here alone looks to be around $100/tonne CO2, but even with capex it is likely to be a heck of a lot cheaper than House et al's $1000/tonne CO2 captured figure, without expensive air contacting and calcining paraphernalia, and with a significantly smaller land footprint. Plus there may be cheaper/better ways to do seawater CO2 extraction (other than OIF). I'm just saying… -Greg From: rongretlar...@comcast.netmailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net rongretlar...@comcast.netmailto:rongretlar...@comcast.net Date: Thursday, July 26, 2012 9:26 PM To: r...@llnl.govmailto:r...@llnl.gov r...@llnl.govmailto:r...@llnl.gov Cc: andrew lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.commailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com, geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [geo] Air capture: Modification of the Mg/DOBDC MOF with Amines to Enhance CO2 Adsorption from Ultradilute Gases Greg and ccs: This is partly to support
Re: [geo] Air capture: Modification of the Mg/DOBDC MOF with Amines to Enhance CO2 Adsorption from Ultradilute Gases
Greg and list Thanks for the link reminder. I'll look into the ocean numbers more.. (I repeat that) I agree with all that you are saying about the large natural fluxes - and our ability to tweak them. I'd appreciate hearing anything quantitative about the potential size of the tweaked fluxes with timing and cost estimates (if you can share any), Ron - Original Message - From: Greg Rau r...@llnl.gov To: rongretlar...@comcast.net Cc: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 4:53:02 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Air capture: Modification of the Mg/DOBDC MOF with Amines to Enhance CO2 Adsorption from Ultradilute Gases Ron, IPCC list gross land and ocean CO2 influxes of 122.6 and 92.2 GT C/yr, respectively: http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch7s7-3.html That's a total gross influx from the atmosphere (gross capture) of (122.6+92.2) x 44/12 = 788 GT CO2/yr. Granted, an almost equal amount of CO2 fluxes out of those systems, but even with this huge leakage enough is retained to account for the removal of 55-60% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions. My point is that air capture is already a vital and free part of reducing anthropogenic CO2 and it's impacts (minus the ocean acidification part). So in the context of increasing net air capture, the obvious routes would be to figure out how to increase these gross influxes and/or decrease gross outfluxes. BECCS, CROPS, and biochar address the latter, OIF (and probably also biochar) addresses the former, while increased ocean alkalinity and mineral weathering could address both. I'm not saying theses are the only technologies but I am saying why bother with purely artificial and expensive air capture apparatus (that in the end produce risky molecular CO2), when all that is needed are relatively minor tweakings of existing global scale air capture/retention systems that safely store carbon in forms other than molecular CO2? Another interesting angle I recently came across is the electrochemical extraction of CO2 (and ocean acidity) from seawater: http://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlepdf/2012/ee/c2ee03393c Assuming you could safely store or use the extracted CO2 (e.g., convert to ocean alkalinity via limestone scrubbing; DO NOT use for EOR), the net effect would be to alkalize and de-acidify seawater, beneficially stabilizing or elevating ocean pH, increasing air CO2 uptake, and stabilizing/increasing coral and shellfish growth, etc. The electricity cost here alone looks to be around $100/tonne CO2, but even with capex it is likely to be a heck of a lot cheaper than House et al's $1000/tonne CO2 captured figure, without expensive air contacting and calcining paraphernalia , and with a significantly smaller land footprint. Plus there may be cheaper/better ways to do seawater CO2 extraction (other than OIF). I'm just saying… -Greg From: rongretlar...@comcast.net rongretlar...@comcast.net Date: Thursday, July 26, 2012 9:26 PM To: r...@llnl.gov r...@llnl.gov Cc: andrew lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com , geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [geo] Air capture: Modification of the Mg/DOBDC MOF with Amines to Enhance CO2 Adsorption from Ultradilute Gases Greg and ccs: This is partly to support your concern about Direct Air Capture (DAC), since we are hearing only part of the OM portion of costs. We need to hear more, but I believe the $100/ton CO2 number (likely equivalent to about $300/ton of charcoal) is encouragingly lower than what we have heard before - and we should be pleased to hear of cost reductions, even though this is still a large number. But I am mostly asking how you calculate the ...in gross some 700+ GT of air CO2 capture/yr naturally going on... . If I divide by 3.67 for molecular weight differences, you are talking about 190 Gt C/yr. I often see a number around 60 Gt C/yr for both land-based and ocean based photosynthetic removal (of course mostly balanced by an annual return of about the same amount). But this presumably leaves (190-2*60=) 70 Gt C for some two-way annual ocean process? I'd like to hear your thoughts on the realistic net (not gross) removals that society might be able to achieve in say 2050 and 2100. I personally am hoping for new massive forest tree-planting to get us from 60 Gt C/yr up to 70. Then perhaps 5 of this added annual 10 can be harvested, leaving 5 for new added global standing biomass stock. The new annual harvestable 5 can be added to another 5 from today's already dying 60 (5/60=8% = new added human appropriation of the existing 60 Gt C/yr). Of this new available 5+5 =10, about half could be assigned to carbon-negative Biochar and half to carbon-neutral biofuels/biopower (2.5 Gt C/yr each). This would mean than about 1/6 of the total of 15 is being used primarily as backup for other (PV wind) sources of thermal and electric energy. This leaves
Re: [geo] Air capture: Modification of the Mg/DOBDC MOF with Amines to Enhance CO2 Adsorption from Ultradilute Gases
Greg and ccs: This is partly to support your concern about Direct Air Capture (DAC), since we are hearing only part of the OM portion of costs. We need to hear more, but I believe the $100/ton CO2 number (likely equivalent to about $300/ton of charcoal) is encouragingly lower than what we have heard before - and we should be pleased to hear of cost reductions, even though this is still a large number. But I am mostly asking how you calculate the ...in gross some 700+ GT of air CO2 capture/yr naturally going on... . If I divide by 3.67 for molecular weight differences, you are talking about 190 Gt C/yr. I often see a number around 60 Gt C/yr for both land-based and ocean based photosynthetic removal (of course mostly balanced by an annual return of about the same amount). But this presumably leaves (190-2*60=) 70 Gt C for some two-way annual ocean process? I'd like to hear your thoughts on the realistic net (not gross) removals that society might be able to achieve in say 2050 and 2100. I personally am hoping for new massive forest tree-planting to get us from 60 Gt C/yr up to 70. Then perhaps 5 of this added annual 10 can be harvested, leaving 5 for new added global standing biomass stock. The new annual harvestable 5 can be added to another 5 from today's already dying 60 (5/60=8% = new added human appropriation of the existing 60 Gt C/yr). Of this new available 5+5 =10, about half could be assigned to carbon-negative Biochar and half to carbon-neutral biofuels/biopower (2.5 Gt C/yr each). This would mean than about 1/6 of the total of 15 is being used primarily as backup for other (PV wind) sources of thermal and electric energy. This leaves considerable need for other forms of energy storage. Having only 2.5 Gt C/yr for biofuels, will greatly drop today's liquid/transportation portion of the total global energy budget - but 25% of annual biomass supply is all we can spare if we are serious about carbon negativity. In the above, I am imagining a scenario where there are no fossil fuels and the non-biomass RE sources are contributing about 10 Gt C/yr of fossil-replacement value. In other words- a total global energy equivalent of about 15 Gt C/yr - about twice today's fossil input, but now fossil-fuel-free.. I recognize this is aggressive and probably impossible. But I am projecting at only about 7 % (=15/190) of your 190 Gt C/yr naturally going on. If we can achieve this new added harvest of 10 GtC/yr at a rate of 10 tonnes per hectare-yr (same as 1 kg/sqm-yr), then we need about 1 Gha - or 10 percent of the available arable land (including some off-shore resource - as is included in the computations at the Global Footprint Network (GFN). What alternative scenario would you propose to best exploit your 190 Gt C/y - to get CO2 down to 350 ppm soon? Thanks for giving the opportunity to be more scenario-oriented on this list. Ron - Original Message - From: Greg Rau r...@llnl.gov To: andrew lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com, geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2012 3:17:59 PM Subject: RE: [geo] Air capture: Modification of the Mg/DOBDC MOF with Amines to Enhance CO2 Adsorption from Ultradilute Gases Thanks, Andrew, for the recent updates on DAC. I remain puzzled, however, by the continuing interest in artificial air CO2 capture when we've got in gross some 700+ GT of air CO2 capture/yr naturally going on, in net consuming 55-60% of our CO2 emissions. Contrary to one of the articles*, air capture is not a concept, it's what is currently saving our bacon right now. Wouldn't it make a lot more sense (and save a lot of cents) figuring out how to enhance/exploit these natural CO2 absorption and conversion processes (e.g, BECCS, CROPS, ocean alkalization, enhance mineral weathering, etc.) rather than trying to reinvent the wheel from the ground up, competing on a cost basis with what nature already does for free? How about investing in improving on the global scale engineering that's already in place? Regards, Greg *http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ie300691c?prevSearch=air%2BcapturesearchHistoryKey= From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley [andrew.lock...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 11:59 AM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Air capture: Modification of the Mg/DOBDC MOF with Amines to Enhance CO2 Adsorption from Ultradilute Gases http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jz300328j Modification of the Mg/DOBDC MOF with Amines to Enhance CO 2 Adsorption from Ultradilute Gases Sunho Choi, Taku Watanabe, Tae-Hyun Bae, David S. Sholl, Christopher W. Jones J. Phys. Chem. Lett., 2012, 3 (9), pp 1136–1141 DOI: 10.1021/jz300328j The MOF Mg/DOBDC has one of the highest known CO 2 adsorption capacities at the low to moderate CO 2 partial pressures relevant for CO 2 capture from flue
Re: [geo] Eutrace project, info from site
Ken and list and Andrew: 1. This is partly to thank you for today's letter from yourself and nine others to Secretary Clinton re the Keystone Pipeline. For others - this is entitled Nation’s Top Climate Scientists: Omitting Climate Change From Keystone XL Pipeline Review Is ‘Neither Wise Nor Credible’ and found on Joe Romm's Think Progress blog site: http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/07/17/527901/nations-top-climate-scientists-omitting-climate-change-from-keystone-xl-pipeline-review-is-neither-wise-nor-credible/ 2. Re your comment below on the Royal Society report (yours is the main name I recognize there as having an interest in CDR (but I don't think you or any were/are active in Biochar), I think the main concern we should have is about small groups making definitive ranking judgements on technologies outside their fields of expertise. I'd love to hear more about how your Royal Society group handled this expertise issue? - and are there any plans to update that report? Were the Royal Society staff really knowledgeable on all they helped with? ON Biochar? My preference would be for something more like a jury trial with advocates for each side. I know there was one such (several month?, two lengthy in person meetings?) approach in the UK - with time for the jury to ask questions - and it resulted in widely different rankings (favoring Biochar). For others, the RS cite is: http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2009/8693.pdf 3. I don't mind the same jury voting on SRM and CDR - but I agree wholeheartedly that the two technologies should not be compared and there should be two searate reports. I wish also urge (to repeat for nth time) that the word geoengineering should never be used when the topic is only SRM. This is not a symmetrical problem. 4. Re the Bipartisan Report, on which you also served - the best part was your Figure 1 on p 7. But I don't know whether to be thankful or baffled as to why the word Biochar was not found worthy of being mentioned even once. I favor baffled, as there are a few people in D.C. who need to hear more on it. 5. I will expand on the prevalence of Biochar reports as I respond later to today's citation on the ETC document, where it would seem that Biochar was the most mentioned item. From this group, that may be OK. 6. I urge people to look up the new website: www.coolplanetbiofuels.com for a different view on this area. Ron - Original Message - From: Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu To: andrew lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 1:30:49 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Eutrace project, info from site This lumping together of CDR and SRM is a historical legacy that is hard to shake off. If I had to point out the single biggest mistake of the Royal Society report writing process, it was not to make two entirely separate reports, one on CDR and one on SRM. Organizations like the Bipartisan Policy Center followed in that wrong-headed decision, and now the Eutrace project is doing the same. Most CDR approaches have more to do with carbon capture from power plants or afforestation than they do with putting aerosols in the stratosphere. The only really problematic CDR technique is ocean fertilization and that is already being addressed under the London Convention. Why do people persist in wanting to closely link CDR and SRM? On Tue, Jul 17, 2012 at 12:31 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.iass-potsdam.de/index.php?id=eutraceL=0 EuTRACE European Trans-disciplinary Assessment of Climate Engineering Growing concern over the difficulty of reducing the greenhouse gas emissions has led to increased interest in “Climate Engineering” (CE) also called “Geoengineering”. The two major CE technology categories currently include: 1. carbon dioxide removal (CDR), such as enhancing the uptake of carbon dioxide by the biosphere or by artificial means; 2. “solar radiation management” (SRM), i.e., counteracting global warming by reflecting additional solar radiation back into space. Scoping assessments of CE schemes are largely confined to expert circles, although CE is rapidly gaining broader scientific, public, commercial and political attention. Many uncertainties remain about CE effectiveness and risks. These include the potential socio-political consequences of intense scientific research itself, such as creating a false sense of security which could possibly derail efforts to reduce emissions (the so-called “moral hazard” argument). The role of CE with respect to mitigation and adaptation in the overall climate change discussion also remains unclear: is CE just one more of the many viable approaches – if at all viable – to be deployed simultaneously in addressing the climate change challenge, or should its use be restricted
Re: [geo] GE/climate regulation
List and Drs. Rau and Caldeira : 1. I can agree with the reactions below to some of the material in Dr. Blackstock's Nature editorial and because I think we are on several important topics. a). To answer Dr. Rau's (rhetorical?) question - (obviously) politicians are (unfortunately) waiting for unmistakable huge impacts and less strident negative denier-PR. The change will have to start at the bottom (and has begun already). b) Dr. Caldeira's requests (below) that emphasis be placed on risk - not self reporting of every sort of possible test related to geoengineering. I can agree - but now we need more detail on how the threshold risk should be defined. 2. I put quotes on geoengineering, because there is again only reference in this three-part exchange to SRM. CDR (mostly/often risk free) is again unfortunately absent from the dialog. 3. To see what else Dr. Blackstock might have written on these several subjects, I located an interesting short exchange between himself and a (Cornell) Prof. Greene at: SCIENCE VOL 328 7 MAY 2010 pp 690-691 [http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/691.full.pdf ] on an earlier, similar Blackstock January 2010 Policy Forum letter in Science : [found at http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5965/527.full] I hope we can concentrate on this from Greene: A more productive approach would shift the debate to comparing the relative costs and benefits of CDR and SRM . Blackstock replied, in part (I think mostly referring to risk): The discussion of urgent governance challenges in the articles Greene cites is not a distraction; it is central to figuring out how to safely and prudently conduct research into SRM technologies. No such acute research governance challenges exist for most CO2 removal techniques. 4. In the original Blackstock January 2010 paper, there is this sentence on CDR : However, technical challenges and large uncertainties surrounding large-scale CDR deployment, along with long delays in the climatic response to carbon forcing, mean that it would take decades to have notable effect ( 4 ). [ (4) is the Royal Society 2009 report) And a similar Blackstock thought in the May exchange: Most CO2 removal schemes, including those suggested by Greene, would be slow acting and expensive, and would pose no transboundary risks. I hope that Dr. Greene's request for a comparison of CDR and SRM will be honored - with emphasis on risks, speed and costs. Re costs for Biochar - the terra preta history in the Amazon started thousands of years ago with no carbon credits nor mandates - and land there is today valued many times that of the un-modified land next door. This doesn't sound like expensive. 5. Searching further. I found an interesting emphasis on CDR given by Dr. Greene at (a free longer ocean-related March 2010 paper): http://www.tos.org/oceanography/archive/23-1_greene.pdf a) I wish he (and two co-authors) had provided more discussion of the CDR use of ocean resources, but I recommend this also because he does compare the two different forms of GE. b) Surprisingly, none of the above (including Greene) makes mention of Biochar - which seems essentially (?) risk free and is presently undergoing many thousands of small tests - perhaps conducted by a majority unable to write a self report. I submit there is zero chance of having self-reporting be taken seriously by anyone in the Biochar research community. 6) I still/again conclude that we'd all be better off with a complete avoidance of the term geoengineering . Ron - Original Message - From: Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu To: r...@llnl.gov Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 2:53:26 PM Subject: Re: [geo] GE/climate regulation The part of this that I find most disturbing is: Geoengineering researchers can ... [begin] with a voluntary registry of ongoing and planned research. First of all, I don't think anybody has ever provided an adequate definition of what constitutes geoengineering research. What is a geoengineering researcher? Does this mean I am supposed to report myself for planning to measure the albedo of different surfaces? Am I supposed to report myself for planning to do certain climate model simulations? What if I paint half my driveway white and then measure the albedo? Does it matter what my intent is when I undertake the experiment or does it depend only on my physically described action? What if the intent of the funder of the research differs from the intent of the scientist? What if different scientists on the research team have different intents? (Maybe one wants to simply understand clouds and another wants to understand how to influence cloud properties.) I think it is completely off-base to worry about whether something does or does not constitute geoengineering research as it is an irrelevant concept to any workable regulatory system that I can
Re: [geo] Free copy of the book 66 Ways to Absorb Carbon and Improve the Earth's Reflectivity
Andrew and List: A few weeks ago, I received a hard copy of this 66 book in the mail, but with sender unknown. I have been meaning to send this list some thoughts on the book, so this is a good chance to thank the unknown sender. I recommend the book - for reasons other than that it is free. I find the ability to electronically search very beneficial (but I confess I mostly have been using the hard copy). Of the 66 topics (chapters), 26 are in the CDR category (60 or so small, paperbook-size pages), after some 37 pages of intro), and 40 chapters (about 75 pages) in the SRM area. The last portion of the book (another 70 pages) covers different energy use sectors and most RE/EE carbon neutral technologies. The list of citations is good - in part because it is concise. I found the book to be well written. The author, Risto Isomaki, is a professional (Finnish) writer - who says he has been working on this topic for more than 15 years. He is judgmental, with little written on the many concepts he discards - but up to 10 pages on those approaches he recommends (such as #8 - growing trees). The Biochar section (#15) at 3 pages is a bit longer than the 2 pages on no-till in Section #14. Unusual for me was the length of material on using ant hills and peat. Obviously, to get to a total of 26 CDR methods, some sections are quite short - such as that for artificial trees (#9, 1/2 page (too high cost)). For each of the 66 sections, the last portion (a few up to a dozen lines) is a valuable concise short Recommendation. Better that I leave any description of the 40 SRM sections to another. One surprise to me, coming from a background in renewable energy, was mention of (1 km) tall solar chimneys (#44) - both for direct cooling (reference given to similarity to Hadley cells) and for use in establishing clouds, all while generating, rather than using, low-cost renewable energy. I think, like Biochar in the CDR area, this is the only SRM approach generating energy. I put quotes on low-cost because following this idea up led me to proposers of the inverse technology - of water-cooled falling air in a similar height chimney - a possibly lower cost concept not mentioned by Mr. Isomaki. I know of no similar introductory book that covers both sides of Geoengineering. And it is free! One last side-note - the 66 book sufficiently impressed me that I purchased a different 2 Euro e-book from the same website with considerable mention of biochar. One part (entitled Terra Preta) was authored by Mr. Isomaki. Mostly the book is on the developing-country use of stoves to produce char, with a commendable author-range of nationalities and perspectives.. That e-book title is At The Bottom of the Energy Ladder, edited by Peter Kuria Githinji Andrew - thanks for letting me get this tardy review off my conscience. Ron . - Original Message - From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 1:24:05 AM Subject: [geo] Free copy of the book 66 Ways to Absorb Carbon and Improve the Earth's Reflectivity http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/66_ways/ (Free PDF) and http://www.into-ebooks.com/book/66_ways_to_absorb_carbon_and_improve_the_earths_reflectivity/ (ePub and Mobi) Forwarded from Milla Karppinen Editor Into Publishing www.intokustannus.fi www.into-ebooks.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] CDR: Arctic phytoplankton - Nature's little geoengineers?
Russell and list: In my just-sent message on a new Geo-engineering overview summary e-book, I meant to add that author Risto Isomaki had not included Bright Water. (Too new in the technical literature for a book that was updated in early 2011). But there is a section there on the albedo differences of algae. My question on arctic algae blooms: I wonder if there is any economic possibility of harvesting the algae for energy and improved sequestration (CDR) purposes? (I found reference to a doubling time of 1 day) It took me quite a while to find the pertinent technical article on which the many popular press reports on Arctic phytoplankton were based. It appeared in last week's Science: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2012/06/06/science.1215065.full There is also a helpful intro to this very short article by Stanford's Dr. Arrigo, in a recent ScienceNow short section (with videos) found at: http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/06/life-blooms-under-arctic-ice.html I still think there should be more of a technical report somewhere - as this seems to be a closed out project . Anyone? Ron - Original Message - From: Russell Seitz russellse...@gmail.com To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 8:16:07 AM Subject: Re: [geo] CDR: Arctic phytoplankton - Nature's little geoengineers? Despite their spectacular visibility, Arctic blooms absorb light as well as backscattering it in ways more complex than microbubbles. It is by no means clear what water temperature changes the interplay of backscattering, undershine, and evolving population density will yield, for dissolved rganic matter and suspended metabolic debris levels vary from organism to organism let alone ecosystem to ecosystem. One hopes multlspectral and hyperspectral imaging will yield some correlations soon. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/S-sflYZ-ZPYJ . To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] New Yorker coverage [podcast streaming and download]
Greg etal: Sorry for the long delay in this response. Since your note below, besides reading your own Eagle story in the WELCOME book identified below, I have read or skimmed the other 15 short stories. Yours was by far the most interesting and well-done (from both a climate and geoengineering point of view). I recommend your story to those who may not have yet read it (it was an attachment on 13 May). Yours is a very rare combination of skills! I think such stories are important as they are a different (and maybe only) way to communicate to most people. As I have now (belatedly) understood more of your work-week, I wonder if there are any other books (or stories) with a geoengineering (as opposed to climate) flavor in the 15 short author bios, or the longer list on the last several pages of WELCOME? This thread started with reference to Elizabeth Kolbert. The Preface you have referenced is only one page long, but I don't want to take the time to re-keystroke it. Basically, she is supporting authorship such as yours for Eagles. Her preface is not as negative that society will do something as I felt was in the audio link provided by Ken (below). I still would look forward to reading more from her on the Geoengineering topic. Ron - Original Message - From: Gregory Benford xbenf...@gmail.com To: rongretlar...@comcast.net Cc: kcalde...@gmail.com, Geoengineering FIPC geoengineering@googlegroups.com, Russell Seitz russellse...@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 11:22:28 AM Subject: Re: [geo] New Yorker coverage [podcast streaming and download] Ron, Ken, the List: Elzabeth Kolbert wrote a brief introduction to an anthology last year, WELCOME TO THE GREENHOUSE. It's stories about global warming, mostly adaptation. The only geoengineering story in it is by me, I think--about opponents of using aerosols in the Arctic. FYI, I attach the story. Gregory Benford On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 8:08 PM, rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote: Ken, List etal (especially Russell Seitz and Greg Benford) I hope it might be helpful to say a little more about Elzabeth Kolbert's background and thoughts in the areas covered by the recommended audio. She has written much on climate for the New Yorker - andused that to produce a fine 2006 book on AGW - entitled Field Notes from a Catastrophe. The last citations are from 2005 - none at all related to geoengineering. The audio cite given by Ken below contains considerable questioning of her on geoengineering. I thought there were not very positive responses from her. Very near the end of the audio she says (unlike Michael Specter) that she sees no political or technical solution to AGW. If any of the numerous Geo list members interviewed by Specter (or earlier by Kolbert) can encourage the New Yorker editors to carry this topic further, I think that would be helpful. The New Yorker is clearly more concerned than most media on climate topics. I hope Kolbert will herself now also write on geoengineering, given her good writing on climate from 6-7 years ago. Mr. Specter caught some of SRM, but I think he missed the CDR part of Geoengineering totally. Here is one example at about the 75%:point in his article, taking about the rapid warming problem - which I think fails to capture the spirit and possibilities of CDR. There are only two ways to genuinely solve the problem: by drastically reducing emissions or by removing the CO 2 from the atmosphere. Trees do that every day. They “capture” carbon dioxide in their leaves, metabolize it in the branch system, and store it in their roots . But to do so on a global scale would require turning trillions of tons of greenhouse-gas emissions into a substance that could be stored cheaply and easily underground or in ocean beds. My suggested revision: There is only one way to genuinely solve the problem: by both drastically reducing emissions and by removing the CO 2 from the atmosphere. Trees do the second part every day. Through photosynthesis, they “capture” carbon dioxide (and release oxygen) using sunlight and water. To do so on a global scale would require annually turning billions of tons of carbon dioxide into charcoal, raw biomass, or liquid CO2 that can be stored in soil , deep underground, or in ocean beds. Later he talks of using captured CO2 to generate synthetic fuels - as though that is CDR. No mention of the APS (Prof. Socolow) critique of DAC costs. Ron From: Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu To: xbenf...@gmail.com Cc: Geoengineering FIPC geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 1:13:42 AM Subject: Re: [geo] New Yorker coverage [podcast streaming and download] May 14, 2012 Michael Specter and Elizabeth Kolbert discuss whether we can invent a solution to global warming without destroying the world. Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/podcasts/outloud#ixzz1uXi4ldco
Re: [geo] More SPICE
Greg, list etal (acknowledging Josh adding thoughts on this topic) 1. As I have read this material, several things have stood out. First is that the word Geoengineering continues to be a replacement for the phrase; Solar Radiation Management (SRM) which is actually under discussion. I hate to keep pointing out that the term Geoengineering includes Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) , but I hope to make some progress through repetition.. 2. The second standout thing is that there was considerable emphasis in this SPICE dialog on the five Oxford Principles, which can be found at http://www.geoengineering.ox.ac.uk/oxford-principles/principles/? I don't recall much/enough discussion in this list on these. In their shortest form, they read: 1: Geoengineering to be regulated as a public good. 2: Public participation in geoengineering decision-making 3: Disclosure of geoengineering research and open publication of results 4: Independent assessment of impacts 5: Governance before deployment (Any decisions with respect to deployment should only be taken with robust governance structures already in place, using existing rules and institutions wherever possible). 3. I can endorse these for SRM and for most CDR. I include the explanatory sentence only for the last because I see a problem for the CDR approach called Biochar - which is already seeing hundreds of zero-governance Biochar tests this year and they are growing exponentially. These cumulatively are much larger than the SPICE test. As near as I can tell even the most anti-Biochar activists are calling for more tests - not few/none. So why is this? Is it possible that Biochar is not Geoengineering? I can't endorse this view - as Biochar clearly has an important CDR component. 4. I propose instead that the Oxford Principles should have an exemption for Principle #5 for any of its CDR subset technologies that has all of these three characteristics: 1) Has non-carbon out-year economic investment value roughly equivalent to its CDR value; 2) Has a lengthy history of use independent of its consideration as a Geoengineering technology, and 3) Has any immediate negative impact only to the user. Can anyone associated with the Oxford (or any other) principles also endorse this exemption? If not, why has Biochar not had any expressed concern like that for the SPICE test? 5. I have endorsed the other 4 principles in large part because they are already being employed and supported within the Biochar world. The first is needed to keep the inevitable shyster companies in line; the regulatory concern is largely re soil degradation - outside the CDR aspect of Biochar. The second principle is happening widely already - with dozens of citizen support groups. Many of those members voted (favorably) on a Biochar characterization standard this past month. The third (disclosure/publication) seems to be largely and enthusiastically happening (dozens some months) - although I am sure there is considerable secrecy and IP concern on the char-production side of Biochar. Patent theory seems to be in support of any non-disclosure related to conversion of biomass to Biochar - and a lot of invention/patenting is happening (for example see www.coolplanetbiofuels.com). The fourth category (independent assessment) has already occurred in several institutions and is certainly not being discouraged. I personally am more concerned about Biochar being ignored - as is largely the case in the publications being discussed in this thread. I should also note that the word Geoengineering almost never appears in Biochar literature - and most Biochar proponents would be delighted to not carry the baggage associated with the term. Few would argue with the term CDR. What disagreements are there with this (personal only) view? Ron - Original Message - From: Greg Rau r...@llnl.gov To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Cc: David Winickoff winick...@berkeley.edu Sent: Wednesday, May 23, 2012 12:26:11 PM Subject: [geo] More SPICE A charter for geoengineering Nature 485, 415 (24 May 2012) doi:10.1038/485415a Published online 23 May 2012 A controversial field trial of technology to mitigate climate change has been cancelled, but research continues. A robust governance framework is sorely needed to prevent further setbacks. Geoengineering research has a problem. That much should be clear following last week's cancellation of a field trial for the Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (SPICE) project. The solutions to this problem are not so obvious, but they must be found — and fast. The SPICE field trial was supposed to involve spraying water into the atmosphere at an altitude of 1 kilometre using a balloon and hosepipe, as part of a host of work exploring whether it is possible to mitigate global warming by introducing particles into the stratosphere to reflect some of the
Re: [geo] New Yorker coverage [podcast streaming and download]
Ken, List etal (especially Russell Seitz and Greg Benford) I hope it might be helpful to say a little more about Elzabeth Kolbert's background and thoughts in the areas covered by the recommended audio. She has written much on climate for the New Yorker - andused that to produce a fine 2006 book on AGW - entitled Field Notes from a Catastrophe. The last citations are from 2005 - none at all related to geoengineering. The audio cite given by Ken below contains considerable questioning of her on geoengineering. I thought there were not very positive responses from her. Very near the end of the audio she says (unlike Michael Specter) that she sees no political or technical solution to AGW. If any of the numerous Geo list members interviewed by Specter (or earlier by Kolbert) can encourage the New Yorker editors to carry this topic further, I think that would be helpful. The New Yorker is clearly more concerned than most media on climate topics. I hope Kolbert will herself now also write on geoengineering, given her good writing on climate from 6-7 years ago. Mr. Specter caught some of SRM, but I think he missed the CDR part of Geoengineering totally. Here is one example at about the 75%:point in his article, taking about the rapid warming problem - which I think fails to capture the spirit and possibilities of CDR. There are only two ways to genuinely solve the problem: by drastically reducing emissions or by removing the CO 2 from the atmosphere. Trees do that every day. They “capture” carbon dioxide in their leaves, metabolize it in the branch system, and store it in their roots . But to do so on a global scale would require turning trillions of tons of greenhouse-gas emissions into a substance that could be stored cheaply and easily underground or in ocean beds. My suggested revision: There is only one way to genuinely solve the problem: by both drastically reducing emissions and by removing the CO 2 from the atmosphere. Trees do the second part every day. Through photosynthesis, they “capture” carbon dioxide (and release oxygen) using sunlight and water. To do so on a global scale would require annually turning billions of tons of carbon dioxide into charcoal, raw biomass, or liquid CO2 that can be stored in soil , deep underground, or in ocean beds. Later he talks of using captured CO2 to generate synthetic fuels - as though that is CDR. No mention of the APS (Prof. Socolow) critique of DAC costs. Ron - Original Message - From: Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu To: xbenf...@gmail.com Cc: Geoengineering FIPC geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, May 11, 2012 1:13:42 AM Subject: Re: [geo] New Yorker coverage [podcast streaming and download] May 14, 2012 Michael Specter and Elizabeth Kolbert discuss whether we can invent a solution to global warming without destroying the world. Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/podcasts/outloud#ixzz1uXi4ldco http://www.newyorker.com/online/podcasts/outloud Podcast available for download at: http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/downloads.newyorker.com/mp3/outloud/120514_outloud_specter.mp3 Podcast may be streamed at: http://www.newyorker.com/online/2012/05/14/120514on_audio_specter On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 10:47 PM, Gregory Benford xbenf...@gmail.com wrote: The Climate Fixers Is there a technological solution to global warming? Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/05/14/120514fa_fact_specter#ixzz1uDdWJAvn David Keith, a professor of engineering and public policy at Harvard and one of geoengineering’s most thoughtful supporters, told me. “Nonetheless,’’ he added, “it is hyperbolic to say this, but no less true: when you start to reflect light away from the planet, you can easily imagine a chain of events that would extinguish life on earth.” Read more http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/05/14/120514fa_fact_specter#ixzz1uDdhsMa9 http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/05/14/120514fa_fact_specter -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
Re: [geo] Re: Ocean albedo modification
Andrew (cc list) Thanks for keeping this thread alive. I agree this biomass albedo effect is potentially important for both SRM and CDRt. I had prepared a response to your Sunday message and so will just also show it (below this new response). I have not yet had time to get to the library to check the original sources, but can summarize my present thinking as:: a). The CDR annual carbon flux X (half carbon neutral and half carbon negative) from trying to harvest the Trichodesmium and using for Biochar purposes could be about (and gladly send the backup calcs and conversions): X (Gt C/yr) ~= .031 Gt C/100 Mha-yr * A (Mha) * P (% photosynthesis efficiency); Ex: X~= 10 ~= .031 * 40 * 8, where A ~= 40 Mha = global ocean area/1000 (designed to give 10 as the answer) and P = 8% as an intentionally optimistic guess for this apparently efficient algae b) I am not sure how to calculate a similar global impact on albedo. Optimitidally, one might achieve a 50% change in albedo for this small (1/1000) fraction of the ocean area. Others can advise how to put a price/value on this improvement. From a Biochar perspective, the unique feature of using Trichodesmium is that the albedo impact is beneficial and nothing (except possibly Bright Water bubbles) has been added to the system - only removals of undesirable material. More comments below.. - Original Message - From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 7:56:08 AM Subject: [geo] Re: Ocean albedo modification This image appears to show a clear albedo effect from blooms http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phytoplankton_SoAtlantic_20060215.jpg Does anyone have a set of high quality ocean iron fertilization images which can be formally evaluated for albedo? I think this would be a very interesting study. Maybe we have missed a trick on OIF? Maybe It's actually an albedo SRM method cunningly disguised as CDR. [RWL - a) I do not yet know how to identify the plankton part of this photo. I found a similar photo for Trichodesmium that I similarly do not know how to interpret. I think the lightest/whitest part of the photo is supposed to be where Trichodesmium does not exist. b) I am not assuming anything about OIF - which use seems to be of major concern to some. The biomass mat I propose harvesting is headed for on-shore energy and sequestration/soil dollar values. Presumably something akin to a tipping fee will also be available? c) Maybe production of pellets; maybe local production of a drop-in fuel and char instead?. Interestingly this would make a powerful negative feedback which could explain the decent into glacials, as aeolian dust fluxes into the southern ocean changed albedo, causing feedbacks which caused further cooling and drying as well as carbon drawdown. This would then lead to more dust flux, etc. Hopefully someone can check whether the above is right or not. [RWL - I have a geologist friend who uses language like yours from the plant Azolla - but in the Arctic. I am more motivated by the possibilities for replacing fossil fuels and for soil improvement - from an amazingly small (~ 1/1000 ocean area ?) region. I am not sure that aeolian dust is responsible for the abnormal and objectionabloe Trichodesmium growth. My comments on your Sunday message (below) are: AL1: Scientific American article identifies AGW sea albedo effect. RWL1: And the effect is not one we want - a brownish algae mat absorbing more sunlight than the whitecap portion of a choppy sea - in a positive feedback mode (more mat = higher temperature = more mat = higher temperature, etc). I imagine there are opposite examples where we can increase albedo using ocean biota.. It is not clear we agree on what is happening or how to exploit the recent changes. AL2: This potentially suggests ocean fertilization and similar manipulations could target albedo, not CO2. RWL2a: First to modify your observation (maybe not understanding your point) - as this particular albedo change with Trichodesmium is presumably one we wish to discourage rather than encourage. Maybe ocean fertilization is appropriate, but mainly I think the SRM (albedo) opportunity is to harvest the Trichodesmium - and thereby breakup the bright water - preventing the mat. RWL2b: The harvested mat material presumably can be used as can any other form of biomass to produce Biochar - with the usual three monetary flows: energy, soil improvement, and carbon sequestration . This could apparently achieve many (see above simple equation) gigatons of new raw material for Biochar. This particular species is one of the few also converting atmospheric N2, so the resultant Biochar will have extra economic fertilizer value. RWL2c: Just to emphasize - this apparently could be both SRM and CDR - and it is pretty hard to find many examples
Re: [geo] Calgary meeting on Direct Air Capture - thoughts?
Greg, Ken, and list I concur mostly with what Ken and Greg have below, but write to keep this nomenclature topic alive. This especially responds to Dr. Caldeira (below) who said: We need a clear term that refers to these centralized industrial direct air capture approaches and distinguishes them from distributed biological or geochemical approaches. I have spent more than an hour trying out subscripts, superscripts, hyphenation, and more to differentiate our discussion topics. I have concluded we need to stick with the term CDR (assumed, but not used much in this thread). Ken's sentence above/below gives us possible terms such as Bio-CDR and Geo-CDR (or Geochem-CDR?). How about DAC-CDR for the last (final?) possibility? Then any other use of DAC fits into something other than CDR (such as DAC-Fuels (carbon neutral), DAC-EOR (carbon positive), etc. - but this list doesn't care what names are associated with these approaches. More inserts below Fr om: RAU greg gh...@sbcglobal.net To: kcalde...@gmail.com, John Gorman gorm...@waitrose.com Cc: rongretlar...@comcast.net, Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com, Oliver Morton omeconom...@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2012 3:51:11 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Calgary meeting on Direct Air Capture - thoughts? Ken et al., As Ken, I also don't have an objection to Direct Air Capture, and to equating this with centralized industrialized processes. If I have a vat of algae consuming CO2 to form biomass or a tub of calcium hydroxide spontaneously sucking CO2 out of the air to form (bi)carbonates, I have a centralized Direct Air Capture system. However, the thermodynamics and economics of the preceding are very different from those of centralized industrial systems that remove CO2 from air to make concentrated CO2. Nevertheless, the results of high profile studies on the latter have been used to characterize and pass judgement on systems like the former, apparently also including the prospects for any form of active CO2 removal from air, be it centralized or decentralized (see the quotes in my earlier email). [RWL1: You haven't and maybe wouldn't include Biochar as a third DAC example - but maybe some would. I sense you are later equating DAC = Direct AIr Capture to just plain Air Capture, of which I suppose Biochar might/could more logically be a part. I would not classify Biochar as centralized Industrial - but it obviously could be. What distinction would you recommend here in this centralized industrial characterization - especially for Biochar? I am proposing that this is NOT a useful discriminator. Aside: I think I understand what you mean by quotes inearlier email - but I didn't take any (of three?) as applying to Biochar. But my main point is that I think we should let DAC only mean the three things meant at the Calgary meeting: carbon negative, carbon neutral, and carbon positive. Both the DAC and CDR worlds would seem to have enough of an inclusion problem and no need to add to it by stretching DAC (or AC) to include words like algae, calcium hydroxide and/or Biochar. ] I say it's way too early to write off pro-active air capture for the next 50 years, unless such inaction is supported by studies (of the type Socolow et al. and House et al conducted) that are extended to the other approaches. Let's not make sweeping and negative judgements about air capture until we know what all of the options are and until their capacity, safety, cost, and net environmental benefit have been objectively studied and compared to other strategies. Any discussion of air capture needs to start with acknowledging that over half of anthro CO2 is being mitigated by such processes right now. [RWL2: Not sure I can agree with this last. We sometimes see about 25% of the added annual CO2 each going into new added biomass (NPP) and into oceans - but neither seems quite right to call mitigation, capture nor especially sequestration. I think you are here using DAC in too broad a meaning. But I of course strongly agree that nothing stated about any DAC option should be transferred to any other CDR approach. ] As for Ken's fear of successful air capture dissuading emissions reduction and therefore increasing climate risk this century: relative to emissions, natural air capture is reducing climate risk right now. How about trying to safely build on this achievement, just in case sufficient emissions reduction continues to elude us? [RWL3: I somewhat like the use of natural air capture, and believe Biochar fits into that phrase. But I think there are better ways to distinguish between technologies. Can you spell out what other technologies you are thinking of here? No till? I am thinking of needing to consider additionality. I believe/hope we can all agree that all CDR (air capture or not) needs further analysis and RD.] Sorry to keep perseverating on this, but I wouldn't do it if I
Re: [geo] Re: Calgary meeting on Direct Air Capture - thoughts?
Mark, CC List This is mainly to support your last paragraph below on fossil fuel corporation responsibilities. It is also to comment on your book. Both responses through further inserts below. - Original Message - From: Marc Gunther marc.gunt...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 12:10:02 PM Subject: [geo] Re: Calgary meeting on Direct Air Capture - thoughts? Like Oliver, I attended the Calgary conference and I believe that air capture technology is worth pursuing--not as a substitute for CCS, surely not as a substitute for mitigation but as another pathway that could help move the world closer (yes, yes, not fast enough, not far enough, I know) to a low-carbon or no-carbon economy. [RWL1: In the opening note in this thread, I cited your 11 March report on the Calgary meeting http://www.marcgunther.com/2012/03/11/direct-air-capture-of-co2-is-becoming-a-business-for-better-or-worse/ I have just re-read that and you seem to have already captured well the recent comments on this list. Re your phrase above move the world closer, I see quite a big difference between using the captured CO2 to make fuels and using it for EOR. Could you comment on how the attendees in Calgary handled these two (and any other) options for the DAC output? This question is in part related to the 7:21 minute Carbon Engineering video, which you introduced in your last sentence at the above site . One minute before the end, the young engineer says that the necessary CO2 for a gallon of synthetic petrol would cost a dollar. Could you (or anyone) say a) what that relates to in $/tonne CO2, and b) what that is as a fraction of the final cost of the gas. If the remaining costs only quadrupal the price to $4.00/gallon , I can get behind DAC enthusiastically.] I agree with everything that Oliver said so well, but want to add to his comment about the financing of the DAC startups. As best as I can tell, Bill Gates, Edgar Bronfman Jr. and the late Gary Comer invested in these companies primarily because they believe that the technology has the potential to do good. However, as I report in my book (Suck It Up: How carbon capture technology can help solve the climate crisis-- it's just $1.99 on Amazon, Greg!), Warburg Pincus, a big private equity firm, is seriously considering an investment in Global Thermostat. One cam safely assume that their investment is financial, and based on revenues that may be generated in the short to medium term by using CO2 for EOR or to feed algae. So Ken Caldeira's and Dave Hawkins' concerns are certainly relevant. [RWL2: I have just purchased and read your book - and am glad in retrospect to have paid my $1.99. I learned a great deal from your extensive interviewing of the key DAC actors . We have heard in the last few days from some you interviewed, but there are at least ten times as many , likely to have been in Calgary, who I would like to have you interview again. I was pleased that you had a little on Sir Richard Branson's CDR competition (DAC and a few others). I urge you to write a similar book covering the rest of the CDR field. What to me is interesting about DAC is that it may help to reframe the politcal debate about fossil fuels and climate change. It's a reminder that the climate problem isn't caused by fossil fuels per se, but by the waste they generate, i.e., CO2. The opens the door to a productive conversation about why the fossil fuel industry shouldn't be required to clean up after itself. You can call this extended producer responsibility or just see it as another example of All I really need to know I learned in kindergarten. [RWL3: As indicated at the top, I agree with all of this. However, to clarify, should use of the CO2 for EOR qualify as cleanup? Would you count recycling into fuels the same as deep sequestration? How would you compare either of those options with other CDR approaches such as Biochar or BECS? And should such other CDR approaches, if cheaper, qualify for meeting the kindergarten responsibility principle? Again thanks for taking such an active reportorial interest in this topic. Ron ] Marc Gunther www.marcgunther.com On Mar 24, 7:06 am, O Morton omeconom...@gmail.com wrote: A few points as someone at the meeting and, it appears, a gusher... As Tim Fox pointed out in Calgary, the lack of any near-term likelihood of large carbon markets paying substantial prices has changed the terms of discussion. If DAC is to have any chance near term (and my feeling was that the consensus of the people on the APS panel that I talked to remains that it really doesn't) then it needs to be able to sell carbon dioxide into a market that both values the product fairly highly and actually exists. That is what the companies are looking with EOR and algae. The hope is that if the companies can get established in one of these
[geo] Calgary meeting on Direct Air Capture - thoughts?
List: 1. I thought this list had a very useful dialog a few months ago on the CDR technology called Direct Air Capture (DAC - sometimes Artificial Trees). I have just become aware of an invitation-only meeting on this topic - hosted by the group ISEEE at the University of Calgary on March 6 and 7. A preliminary agenda is available at: http://www.iseee.ca/dacs/ 2. Two useful recent descriptions of the dialog are given at: http://www.economist.com/node/21550241 and http://www.marcgunther.com/2012/03/11/direct-air-capture-of-co2-is-becoming-a-business-for-better-or-worse/ 3. Marc Gunther also had an article on the major DAC companies just as the meeting was starting at: http://chimalaya.org/2012/03/06/rethinking-carbon-dioxide-from-a-pollutant-to-an-asset/ 4. I gather from this material that Prof. Socolow was under considerable pressure to lower his (and APS') decidedly negative projection on costs. I wonder if any list member in attendance can comment on this controversy - that was covered nicely on this list. 5. I also gather there was considerable unhappiness in the present emphasis of all (?) of these DAC companies away from CDR - and instead on to uses of the captured CO2 for enhanced oil/gas production and for combination with H2 for appreciably lower carbon footprint fuel production. Any comments on these aspects - or any other part of the meeting? Thanks in advance for any additional information. Ron -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] PUP Conference Poster
Josh: I found your poster to be complete and accurate. I hope you can find a way to squeeze in that the statements shown are for primarily the SRM (and not the CDR) part of Geoengineering. Ron - Original Message - From: Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012 11:54:04 AM Subject: [geo] PUP Conference Poster Hi everyone, I'll be presenting the attached poster on the global politics of geoengineering at the upcoming Planet Under Pressure conference, and I'd love to get feedback from group members beforehand. The basic idea is to provide a high-level overview of geoengineering politics--with the poster format, this inevitably means cutting out a lot of detail. I'd appreciate any comments, criticisms, suggestions - thanks. Josh Horton joshuahorton...@gmail.com -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/pWmN69jFNMsJ . To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] Rapid ocean acidification militates rapid CO2 removal (CDR)
John and ccs: There are many estimates of available biomass, although not many for CDR (through Biochar, BECCS, etc). A recent one (still not for CDR) that seems to have been well done is in a new WF report at this site (especially its Section 5 and several appendices): http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/climate_carbon_energy/energy_solutions/renewable_energy/sustainable_energy_report/ I believe WWF can be assumed to be cautious on over-use of the global biomass resource. In this study for 2050, their total use of biomass is about 40% of the total energy demand - which is mostly renewable - and at a total of about 250 EJ/yr (possible because of assumed aggressive energy efficiency estimates). Their Fig. 5.1 says they are using about half of the technically available biomass - and they barely utilized any of the tremendous land area now being used for livestock. Because they calculate everything in energy (Exajoule) terms, we need to use a factor about 30 GJ/tonne C to obtain that a projected total carbon in biomass use (in 2050) of about 100 EJ converts to about 3.3 Gt C/yr (about half of today's fossil use/deposition of carbon). To get this same amount as Biochar (not considered at all by WWF), we would need to employ approximately twice as much input biomass - about the amount shown as technically available in their Fig. 5.1. I think this is a feasible goal. To check on its reasonableness, I need to get more deeply into the assumptions, but the yield values in Table C-2 seem OK (on the order of 4-6 tonnes C/ha-yr.) But your question relates to all CDR. New extra standing biomass is possible beyond the above. Today photosynthesis on land has an NPP (Net Primary Productivity) of about 60 Gt C/yr. If this were increased to 70 (or 80), even before any additional harvesting, there could be a huge annual CDR increase of 10 (to 20) annual Gt C. Eventually this new added standing biomass can/should also be converted to Biochar (divide these annual C-values by 2 to get Biochar). Of course with Biochar there are additional annual out-year sequestration benefits (both carbon neutral and carbon negative). I believe there are eventual combined benefits from Biochar that are from 50% to 100% of today's fossil annual C-inputs. Not to be sneezed at - and larger than any other approach I know of. Hope this WWF reference is helpful in answering your question below on Biochar being scaled enough. Other thoughts on this? Ron - Original Message - From: John Nissen johnnissen2...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Cc: John Nissen j...@cloudworld.co.uk, Peter R Carter petercarte...@shaw.ca, Anthony Cook wynotpoint...@yahoo.com, Ron Larson rongretlar...@comcast.net, Sam Carana sam.car...@gmail.com Sent: Tuesday, March 6, 2012 7:02:52 AM Subject: [geo] Rapid ocean acidification militates rapid CO2 removal (CDR) [Resent with correction] Hi all, Is there an alternative to rapid CDR to reduce the atmospheric CO2 level and hence slow ocean acidification? Acidification is progressing at the fastest rate for 300 million years, faster even than in the PETM [1], and spells catastrophe if not curbed over the next decade or two. I am supporter of biochar for CDR on a large scale. But few people think biochar can be scaled enough to actually start reducing the atmospheric CO2 level in the face of CO2 emissions set to climb for decades. So we need a combination of low to medium cost CDR schemes, capable of scaling to the very large. Yesterday I heard about a scheme for use of solar energy (e.g. in Sahara) to power the scrubbing of CO2 from the atmosphere and the production of hydrogen from H2O. The hydrogen would then be combined with the captured CO2 to create a carbon-neutral hydrocarbon fuel, which could then be cheaply and efficiently piped to countries wanting a green energy source, e.g. for cars and electricity generation. Apparently it's much cheaper and more efficient to pipe liquid fuel than transmit the equivalent electric power over the same distance. Cheers, John P.S. If hydrogen can be produced from H2O, could a hydroxyl byproduct be used for combination with scrubbed methane (CH4) to produce further carbon-neutral fuel? Atmospheric methane levels are rising ominously. [1] http://planetark.org/wen/64838 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
Re: [geo] O2 Dropping Faster than CO2 Rising
Ken, Bhaskar, list 1. I will respond separately to Bhaskar (and therefor truncate this message re ISIS and biomass/O2). 2. I will respond separately to Ken's defense of Greenpeace received after this . 3. Re Dr. Mae-Wan Ho - I wish that we could treat her remarks as a joke. I find her opinions quite dangerous - because they are uninformed - especially in her dismissal of everything climate related to biomass , and especially Biochar. To really understand her material, you have to buy her figures and citations (the test is generally free.. To find what they cost, you first have to become a member of her group (which also provides a quarterly publication on almost anything and everything labeled sustainablity.) I am unwilling to join anything with this publication policy. But I have seen (through a friend) her citations on Biochar. They are obviously cribbed from other similarly non-peer-reviewed anti-Biochar material. Not a joke. 4. She has a more recent 100% RE scenario, with essentially zero biomass (only some biogas) (WWF/Ecofys is about 40% in a report with similar title.) But cold fusion is in there. Not a joke. 5. Re O2, I certainly agree with Ken than the amount of lost O2 through combustion (and sequestration) is vanishingly small. But she goes further with Biochar, saying that char also eventually oxidizes (true). But the centuries to millenia before that oxidation, and the increased growth above ground apparently count for nothing with her. Dr. Ho is the only person I know (in whole world) who says that Biochar removes O2. I hope someone can explain how she can be correct in this assertion. She also says accelerated O2 changes are primarily due to increased production of biofuels (not mentioning fossil fuels, which gives me equal pause). However, I consider her misdiagnosed direction of O2 change for Biochar more serious than not understanding the small size of the reduced O2 changes that are occurring. She isn't discussing either aspect of O2 change as a joke. Ron - Original Message - From: Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu To: bhaskarmv 64 bhaskarmv...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 4, 2012 9:36:49 AM Subject: Re: [geo] O2 Dropping Faster than CO2 Rising I hope everyone recognizes that this must be some sort of joke. No reasonable scientist could believe that carbon sequestration could be disastrous for all oxygen-breathing organisms including humans. I prefer to think that this is an attempt at humor, because I would not like to imagine that these people are innumerate crackpots. There are something like 3.7 x 10^21 moles of O2 in the atmosphere. If we are emitting say 10 GtC per year, and we round off to 10 g / molC, this is 10^15 moles C. So, at this rate we are depleting about 0.3 % of the atmospheric O2 each year. This is not a policy concern. On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 11:39 PM, M V Bhaskar bhaskarmv...@gmail.com wrote: http://www.i-sis.org.uk/O2DroppingFasterThanCO2Rising.php O2 Dropping Faster than CO2 Rising snip - response coming from RWL -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] O2 Dropping Faster than CO2 Rising
Ken etal 1. This is mainly to say that Dr. Kallio was referencing Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, not Greenpeace, re Oxygen depletion (your question below). I talked about her in my last message and would rather not give her more publicity here on this same topic. Anyone who can't find her quote, let me know. 2. But I think Greenpeace needs more discussion here. I have generally been a supporter of Greenpeace - but I think they are as likely to be supportive of Geoengineering as they are of biomass (respectively # 8 and #3 in Dr. Kallio's list below. This is to hope we can figure out how to get this group turned around - which I think is Dr. Kallio's hope as well. 3. I haven't found a specific lengthy reference by Greenpeace to Geoengineering (#8), but re Biomass (#3) I am disappointed in the treatment (neglect) of biomass in these two fairly recent Greenpeace reports: http://www.greenpeace.org/canada/Global/canada/report/2011/10/ForestBiomess_Eng.pdf http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/Global/usa/report/2010/6/greenpeace-energy-r-evolution.pdf 4. I haven't yet looked at each in detail, but think they have paid zero attention to the role of biomass (stored energy) in backing up the large amounts of wind and solar they postulate. I also see nothing on biomass for CDR. Is there any way we can get their attention on these two matters? 5. The WWF has taken a completely different (and very positive) view of biomass - and I would guess on CDR. See: http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/climate_carbon_energy/energy_solutions/renewable_energy/sustainable_energy_report/ 6. Are the WWF and Greenpeace talking to each other? Cany Ken or anyone facilitate that dialog? Ron - Original Message - From: Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu To: Veli Albert Kallio albert_kal...@hotmail.com Cc: bhaskarmv 64 bhaskarmv...@gmail.com, Geoengineering FIPC geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, March 4, 2012 4:45:25 PM Subject: Re: [geo] O2 Dropping Faster than CO2 Rising Just to be clear, I have seen no evidence that Greenpeace has anything to do with the inane remarks about oxygen depletion. I have had interaction with at least two Greenpeace scientists (specifically, Paul Johnston and David Santillo). While they have sometimes argued for positions that I have disagreed with, I have found them both to be thoughtful and respectful of scientific facts. So, while there may be sound criticism of positions taken by Greenpeace, let's not associate them with positions they have not held. If I am wrong, and Greenpeace has said that carbon sequestration could be disastrous for all oxygen-breathing organisms, I would like to see the citation. On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Veli Albert Kallio albert_kal...@hotmail.com wrote: New research shows oxygen depletion in the atmosphere accelerating since 2003, coinciding with the biofuels boom; climate policies that focus exclusively on carbon sequestration could be disastrous for all oxygen-breathing organisms including humans. Dr. Mae-Wan Ho This is an excellent example of bad environmental campaign that is basically a climate or biofuel scare industry (just out there to cash coldly on people's fears). I have seen the 4 scares coming from Greenpeace's fund-rising department's conveyor belt which reduces the credibility of a real scare: climate change Nuclear-Scare ( the China Phenomenon of overheated cores apparently melting themselves through the rocks all the way to China) GM-Food Scare ( the Frankenstein Foods developed by the Monsanto to create crops that poison people and turn ecosystems lifeless by the alien genes) Biofuel Scare ( the Biofuel Starvation resulting as all the food is used by bio diesel drinking cars and people starving in masses as a result) -- I like that idea of oxygen scarcity, scare-industrialists at Greenpeace should follow it up: C + O2 consumes more O2 than C in biofuel combustion into CO2. DDT-Scare ( the Silent Spring that a blanket-ban of this insecticide was better for Africa and its people in all instances and in Malaria infection management) These are further candidates for Greenpeace and other campaigns to keep their industry going and receiving donations, but so doing are misguided Contrail-Scare ( the Aviation Fuel Poisoning by some elements in government, academia or industry who want less people) Vaccine-Scare ( the Vaccination Poisons AIDS / MRI etc used by some rogue elements in government, academia or industry who want less people) Astronomy-Scare ( the HAARP Scare for astronomers to irradiate people, blow out our atmosphere, or whatever) Geoengineering -Scare ( the Scientists Playing God to stop them destroying the nature and people by engineering our environment for the worse) For our Group the last, Geoengineering Scare Industry, is the most relevant one. But it isn't the only one and we should see it as part of our age to create
Re: [geo] Re: Lindzen presents skeptics' case to UK House of Commons
Prof. MacCracken, list and ccs: 1. I thought your 2007 response (cite below) on Dr. Lindzen was really well done. Thanks for going to all that effort. 2. Question #1 - was there ever any response from Dr. Lindzen? (or any other denier?) 3. Question #2 - do you or anyone know how Dr. Lindzen handles the changing Arctic ice area and volume (or thickness)? (chosen as the most clear evidence of rapid climate change) Background: When you wrote in 2007, the (2006) volume was at about 9000 km3 - and one could argue that a turnaround might still occur. Last year (2011, 5 years later), the September minimum was down to 4000 km3. The year for 14,000 km3 (5000 km3 in the other direction) is harder to state, but an average curve value was 1991 (September, bit more than 20 years ago). (cite: http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b0153920ddd12970b-pi) - This gives a difference of15 years (3 times longer for losing a similar 5000 km3). If we chose another 4000 km3 (another 5000 km3 difference would be getting us into negative volume territory), it looks from the above graph could be about 2014 (less than 3 years off) - but might not occur until 2015 (the plotted points are [accurately] shown on the abscissa as fractional parts of a year). Similar data for other months (with very similar trend lines) is at: https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/piomas/piomas-trnd2.png Another year or two and we have 3 months ice-free prediction [and keep on adding months quickly - accelerated (predicted)] 4. Question #3 - Has anyone seen a re-rebuttal to (I think/hope) a major new rebuttal to Dr. Lindzen (in part) by Prof. Wm. Nordhaus? Background: Dr. Lindzen was part of the group of 16 writing recently in the WSJ. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html The Nordhaus detailed rebuttal (appears in today's blog posting by Dr. Joe Romm at): http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/03/01/435304/economist-william-nordhaus-smacks-down-the-wall-street-journal-deniers/ (above an early version - or today: http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/02/434413/economist-william-nordhaus-slams-global-warming-deniers-cost-of-delay-is-4-trillion/?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateprogress%2FlCrX+%28Climate+Progress%29 with the original at: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/ Again, thanks to Dr. McCracken for nice work. Apologies for truncating his full reply. Ron - Original Message - From: Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net To: jrandomwin...@gmail.com, Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 7:07:40 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Lindzen presents skeptics' case to UK House of Commons Although not widely distributed, I got so frustrated with an op-ed that Lindzen was invited to submit to Newsweek several years ago that I put together a point-by-point set of comments in response. Something like 19 points of difference for a one-page op-ed. Despite its length, I understand it does get at least some hits. See http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2007/05/12/maccracken-on-lindzen¹s-mislea ding-newsweek-op-ed/ As a general comment, Lindzen's way of presenting his views can make them long snip - including two earlier -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] Re: Lindzen presents skeptics' case to UK House of Commons
Eugene: 1. Apologies for using the term denier on this list - probably should not have. But in this case I am still torn on the appropriate label. I'd like your opinion in this specific case. 2. My defense is that I have recently tried to read more of Dr. Lindzen's material and found that he so defines himself with that label Proof 1 (obtained by googling) : At motls.blogspot.com/2012/02/fred-singer-and-skeptics-vs-deniers.html the author says Richard Lindzen likes to call himself a proud denier, too. I surely see his point. Proof 2 www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2011/11/21/the-rise-and-fall-of-climate-change-denial/ author: Professor Richard Lindzen from MIT says he prefers the term denier to skeptic. “I actually like ‘denier.’ That’s closer than skeptic.” 3. I am sure there are many more such possible quotes and self-quotes (I had a different one, that I can't find.) But, nevertheless, maybe I shouldn't have used his own label. Ron - Original Message - From: Eugene Gordon euggor...@comcast.net To: rongretlar...@comcast.net, mmacc...@comcast.net Cc: jrandomwin...@gmail.com, Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 2:52:37 PM Subject: RE: [geo] Re: Lindzen presents skeptics' case to UK House of Commons It is a sick use of the term to characterize someone who disagrees with the magnitude and urgency of the situation as a denier. That is equivalent to saying, I am right, I know best and anyone with a different view is denying my superior wisdom. That is a head shaker, From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of rongretlar...@comcast.net Sent: Friday, March 02, 2012 3:43 PM To: mmacc...@comcast.net Cc: jrandomwin...@gmail.com; Geoengineering Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Lindzen presents skeptics' case to UK House of Commons Prof. MacCracken, list and ccs: 1. I thought your 2007 response (cite below) on Dr. Lindzen was really well done. Thanks for going to all that effort. 2. Question #1 - was there ever any response from Dr. Lindzen? ( or any other denier?) 3. Question #2 - do you or anyone know how Dr. Lindzen handles the changing Arctic ice area and volume (or thickness)? (chosen as the most clear evidence of rapid climate change) Background: When you wrote in 2007, the (2006) volume was at about 9000 km3 - and one could argue that a turnaround might still occur. Last year (2011, 5 years later), the September minimum was down to 4000 km3. The year for 14,000 km3 (5000 km3 in the other direction) is harder to state, but an average curve value was 1991 (September, bit more than 20 years ago). (cite: http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b0153920ddd12970b-pi ) - This gives a difference of15 years (3 times longer for losing a similar 5000 km3). If we chose another 4000 km3 (another 5000 km3 difference would be getting us into negative volume territory), it looks from the above graph could be about 2014 (less than 3 years off) - but might not occur until 2015 (the plotted points are [accurately] shown on the abscissa as fractional parts of a year). Similar data for other months (with very similar trend lines) is at: https://sites.google.com/site/arctischepinguin/home/piomas/piomas-trnd2.png Another year or two and we have 3 months ice-free prediction [and keep on adding months quickly - accelerated (predicted)] 4. Question #3 - Has anyone seen a re-rebuttal to (I think/hope) a major new rebuttal to Dr. Lindzen (in part) by Prof. Wm. Nordhaus? Background: Dr. Lindzen was part of the group of 16 writing recently in the WSJ. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204301404577171531838421366.html The Nordhaus detailed rebuttal (appears in today's blog posting by Dr. Joe Romm at): http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/03/01/435304/economist-william-nordhaus-smacks-down-the-wall-street-journal-deniers/ (above an early version - or today: http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/03/02/434413/economist-william-nordhaus-slams-global-warming-deniers-cost-of-delay-is-4-trillion/?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=Feed%3A+climateprogress%2FlCrX+%28Climate+Progress%29 with the original at: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/mar/22/why-global-warming-skeptics-are-wrong/ Again, thanks to Dr. McCracken for nice work. Apologies for truncating his full reply. Ron - Original Message - From: Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net To: jrandomwin...@gmail.com , Geoengineering Geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, March 2, 2012 7:07:40 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: Lindzen presents skeptics' case to UK House of Commons Although not widely distributed, I got so frustrated with an op-ed that Lindzen was invited to submit to Newsweek several years ago that I put together a point-by-point set of comments in response. Something like 19 points of difference for a one-page op-ed.
Re: [geo] study on transitions from coal-based electricity production
Ken, cc List 1. I like your analysis. It seems to be a new and needed analytical methodology. Unfortunately, I think many will take it to be quite discouraging about reaching carbon neutrality in the (2030?) time period proposed by Dr. Hansen, even much later. One bright spot however is that your analysis included nothing related to carbon dioxide removal (CDR) - and especially nothing on any biomass technology - and therefore also not my favorite CDR approach: Biochar. 2. Dr. Hansen seems to have used only new extensive plant growth to actually remove carbon necessary to move towards 350 ppm atmospheric CO2. I believe that when coupled with extensive field management for maximum photosynthesis, and the use of excess annual trimming growth for Biochar, with its own additional out-year productivity advantages, there is a much greater chance to achieve both carbon neutrality and carbon negativity - hopefully with a CO2 peak well before 2050. The situation can be improving each year as additional area is devoted to biomass energy and sequestratrion.. 3. So, I hope you can find a way to add biomass areas to the many RE technologies you have already included in this study (link given below). By way of emphasizing the necessity and importance of biomass in an all-RE future scenario, I recommend a Danish Green Energy study which found their year 2050 optimum with 40% biomass, only a little less than wind for that country. This also included both the biofuels and biopower possibilities (and especially a lot of combined heat and power (CHP), that was not in your study. That Danish study was performed by: a) www.klimakommissionen.dk where I was bounced today to b) http://www.ens.dk/en-US/policy/danish-climate-and-energy-policy/danishclimatecommission/greenenergy/Documents/green%20energy%20GB%20screen%201page%20v2.pdf On p9. there is this summary sentence on Biomass: Biomass will play an important role in the coming energy system, not least of which in the transport sector and as a backup for wind turbines Of course they identify that biomass is not as available as wind - but still it comes in as a major, not zero. contributor. I think it very important to consider this backup (ie biomass as energy storage) role for biomass (and hence for Biochar) c) Two other documents from different Danish sources, but similar 100% RE goals in 2050 for Denmark (with similar large amounts of biomass). http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=1ved=0CCQQFjAAurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.danishenergyassociation.com%2F~%2Fmedia%2FPower_to_the_people%2FPowertothepeople_UK_low.pdf.ashxei=yK9CT6ucI-LkiALErNWkAQusg=AFQjCNGngiyr-mo1CzoW0ZYccQzZ7ZKt-wsig2=XpKbWbd1ONZsFy7g43aheg and http://www.denmark.dk/NR/rdonlyres/2BD031EC-AD41-4564-B146-5549B273CC02/0/EnergyStrategy2050web.pdf 4. I believe (certainly can't yet prove) that if you include CDR from Biochar (but also as an energy technology) with terawatt, petajoule, and gigatonnne C per year potential, we will find that the timing situation is not as dire as your results presently indicate. Your analysis must of course include Biochar's needed much increased standing and annually increasing (not decreasing) both standing biomass and annual yields. IF we are serious about numbers like 350 ppm CO2. 5. I recognize that you have not claimed that this latest paper has covered ALL possible RE resources. Still, I fear that many readers will not recognize that the situation can be quite acceptable as we (necessarily) move to 100% RE AND achieve both carbon neutrality and negativity (with Biochar providing about equal amounts of each). 6. Slightly different final subject: I like that you have included the solar Bootstrap concept (section SD2). I first saw this in the 1970s with at least one US firm using the phrase Solar Breeder. Many PV firms still display a lot of their own PV on their manufacturing facilities. Not as practical for wind, but not impossible by fiat. The new issue for me is whether we can say the same about a Biochar-Breeder or Biochar-Bootstrap process. I think we can, since in many cases we will be using the world's least productive land - made productive through Biochar. Ron - Original Message - From: Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, February 17, 2012 10:09:18 AM Subject: [geo] study on transitions from coal-based electricity production Folks, The attached paper is a little far afield for this group, but it indicates some of the challenges associated with reducing the amount of warming that might occur this century through transformation of our energy system. Particles in the stratosphere change planetary radiative forcing very rapidly, whereas changes in emissions change the rate of change of radiative forcing, but do not substantially change radiative forcing on a short time scales.
Re: [geo] Crop yields in a geoengineered climate (notes from the blogosphere ...)
Ken and list: 1. I have enjoyed the Pongratz article sent recently which is the subject of this NPR interview given below. In it, Dr. Pongratz, you and your co-authors did a pretty good job of separating SRM from Geoengineering. (I don't think the phrase CDR appeared, however) This is to again hope that all authors doing fine work like yours at Carnegie go out of their way to say that Geoengineering has both SRM and CDR parts. 2. The NPR interview below does not do that at all. Fortunately the other two (bitsof science and smartplanet) do at least use the terms SRM and sunshade. All of them fail to mention that CDR is a second (and much less controversial) part of Geoengineering. 3. I mention this mainly because your Carnegie team is (I think correctly) not arguing for any SRM at this time. However, there are many on this list who think we are ready now for an accelerated push on CDR. 4. I also have hopes that your modeling work can be extended into the CDR world. We need such modeling - urgently. As previously, thanks for alerting us - and (especially) making your Carnegie papers available - to the list. Ron - Original Message - From: Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2012 9:59:00 AM Subject: [geo] Crop yields in a geoengineered climate (notes from the blogosphere ...) Some coverage in the blogosphere of our recent paper from Nature Climate Change (attached): http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2012/01/20/145535536/geoengineered-food-climate-fix-could-boost-crop-yields-but-with-risks Geoengineered Food? Climate Fix Could Boost Crop Yields, But With Risks For a few years now, a handful of scientists have been proposing grandiose technological fixes for the world's climate to combat the effects of global warming — schemes called geoengineering . Climate change has the potential to wreak all kinds of havoc on the planet, including the food system. Scientists predict that two variables farmers depend on heavily — temperature and precipitation — are already changing and affecting food production in some arid parts of the world where there isn't a lot of room for error. And if the problem worsens on a larger scale, it could do a lot of damage to agricultural yields and food security. At some point, governments may decide to do something desperate to protect our food and our people, Ken Caldeira , an environmental scientist at Stanford University, tells The Salt. And that something desperate could be geoengineering. One proposal scientists are batting around is to fill the upper atmosphere with tiny particles that could scatter sunlight before it reaches, and warms, the Earth's surface. Sulfate droplets inside volcanic ash clouds already do this naturally. So the idea is that a few million tons of sulfates, sprayed into the stratosphere by airplanes, could produce the same effect artificially. Scientists have been messing with local weather for decades. China does it all the time, most infamously during the 2008 Olympics . But around 2006, the notion of doing it on a global scale got more traction, especially when Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen got behind it . A backlash ensued, as many pointed out that tampering with such a complex system was far too risky. Caldeira began studying geoengineering with the intent of proving that it's a bad idea. But his new research suggests that manipulating the climate could actually produce benefits, at least for food production. For instance: a study from his lab, published Sunday in Nature Climate Change , compares the effect on the global food supply of unmitigated global warming versus geoengineering. The result? Crop yields of wheat, rice and corn would actually get a boost from geoengineering. Julia Pongratz , a post-doc researcher, led the study. She used computer climate models to simulate a doubling of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. Plants like CO 2 , but the models showed that the resulting temperature increase would lead to an overall decrease in crop yields. When she added the cooling effects of geoengineering, however, the model showed crop yields increasing as much as 20 percent. Without the stress of higher temperatures, plants would be able to take full advantage of the extra CO 2 . So, does this mean we should start geoengineering today? Definitely not, Pongratz says. For one thing, her simulation only studied the average global temperature – not the localized effects of geoengineering. Even if the global average remained the same, some regions might get hotter while others get colder. That could cause drastic local or regional changes in climate and weather patterns. Also, geoengineering wouldn't prevent other harmful effects of higher CO 2 levels, such as ocean acidification, she says. And both of those problems would threaten local food security, especially in
Fwd: [geo] Charitable donations for geoengineering research
List: Here (IBI) is another (tax qualified) alternative for a donation that will promote one of the technologies on the CDR side of geoengineering. Kelpie is an IBI staffer. Ron - Original Message - From: Kelpie Wilson kelp...@gmail.com To: rongretlar...@comcast.net Sent: Friday, January 13, 2012 3:57:11 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Charitable donations for geoengineering research Hi Ron, Yes indeed IBI is a 501c3 non-profit and donors may take a tax deduction. The money goes to support our programs: communications (newsletter and website), project support, and Biochar Guidelines. We encourage people to join as a member and also give a donation of any amount that they can afford. Here is the link to the join page on the IBI website: http://www.biochar-international.org/join Thanks for thinking of us, Ron. -Kelpie On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 8:27 PM, rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote: Kelpie: I'd like to say same things for donation to IBI. Is IBI a 501c3 type? Ron From: Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu To: andrew lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com Cc: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 5:00:08 PM Subject: Re: [geo] Charitable donations for geoengineering research I believe we are able to accept such donations and would be happy to do so. http://carnegiescience.edu/giving-opportunities I believe we can accept donations earmarked for specific purposes. (If the demands are too cumbersome, we can always decline.) The normal form just let's you specify down to the department level, not the project level. However, I think a phone call or an email would be enough to specify the subject area to which the funds should be applied. --- That said, I am not a lawyer and am not speaking on behalf of my institution. For big donations, we can develop specific signed agreements about how funds would be used. For small donations, my guess is the institution would allocate the donation to the project requested by the donor, but would not want to open themselves up to potential frivolous lawsuits examining exactly how tiny donations were spent. (If you want to damage an organization, donate $10 for a specific purpose and then sue them in small claims court claiming they mis-spent the money, and then make them go through all kinds of maneuvers to document exactly how the $10 was spent.) ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote: blockquote It would be useful, as a matter of record, to have on this list any institutions which currently accept donations specifically earmarked for geoengineering science or policy research. At present it is unclear to me if any labs or organisations are able to accept donations from members of the public. I'm sure that there are many legitimate uses for such funds - eg funding PhDs, buying computer time, journal page fees, conference sponsorship, delegate travel bursaries. Could anyone who has details of such an opportunity for donations please reply to the list? A -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en . /blockquote -- Ms.Kelpie Wilson IBI Project Development Director www.biochar-international.org Email: kel...@biochar-international.org Home Office: 541-592-3083 Mobile: 541-218-9890 Google Voice: 646-535-7439 (646-kelpiew) Skype: kelpie.wilson IBI is a non-profit, member-supported organization and is counting on your generous donation to put the Earth Back in the Black ! Click here to join IBI today! *In the U.S., your membership is tax-deductible. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [geo] GE: Love/hate (cont.)
Greg and list: Thanks for keeping this on the front burner. And thanks to the many members of this list for putting in a lot of hard work in preparing this report I have only skimmed through the full new report (identified by Andrew a half day ago ( http://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/solar-radiation-governance/report/?f=1 ) . But, I was amazed at how well the term geoengineering had (totally??) disappeared - to be replaced throughout this 70 page report by the term SRM - (either Solar Radiation Management or (per Ken) - ‘Sunlight Reflection Methods’. I suspect both definitions of SRM will and should be used. I am sorry that Silvia Ribeiro, of the ETC-Group failed to pick up on the big distinction in this report between SRM and Geoengineering. The terms are confused below in her quotes - unlike the document under discussion. Being challenged to keep up with the one part of the world of CDR, I do not intend to ever delve into the details of this report, which is restricted to SRM. But my quick skimming suggests this was an excellent start at governance thinking for both SRM and CDR. CDR will benefit from following this closely, and at least some of the CDR approaches will apparently be able to skip some steps. Ron - Original Message - From: RAU greg gh...@sbcglobal.net To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, December 2, 2011 2:29:51 PM Subject: [geo] GE: Love/hate (cont.) The final report grew out of three days of talks in a quiet country retreat last March, the climax of a yearlong dialogue spanning experts in 22 countries. Quiet indeed. - Greg U.N. Climate Conference: Geoengineering Could Save Earth -- Or Destroy It ARTHUR MAX 12/ 2/11 12:29 PM ET React DURBAN, South Africa — Brighten clouds with sea water? Spray aerosols high in the stratosphere? Paint roofs white and plant light-colored crops? How about positioning sun shades over the Earth? At a time of deep concern over global warming, a group of scientists, philosophers and legal scholars examined whether human intervention could artificially cool the Earth – and what would happen if it did. A report released late Thursday in London and discussed Friday at the U.N. climate conference in South Africa said that – in theory – reflecting a small amount of sunlight back into space before it strike's the Earth's surface would have an immediate and dramatic effect. Within a few years, global temperatures would return to levels of 250 years ago, before the industrial revolution began dumping carbon dioxide into the air, trapping heat and causing temperatures to rise. But no one knows what the side effects would be. They could be physical – unintentionally changing weather patterns and rainfall. Even more difficult, it could be political – spurring conflict among nations unable to agree on how such intervention, or geoengineering, will be controlled. The idea of solar radiation management has the potential to be either very useful or very harmful, said the study led by Britain's Royal Society, the Washington-based Environmental Defense Fund and TWAS, the academy of sciences for the developing world based in Trieste, Italy. Environmentalist Silvia Ribeiro, of the Canada-based ETC-Group, said geoengineering should be outlawed before it gets off the ground. Solar radiation management technologies are high-risk and extremely dangerous and they should be treated under international law like nuclear weapons – except, unlike nuclear weapons, we have an opportunity to ban their testing and their proliferation before the technology is fully developed, rather than trying to prevent their proliferation after the fact, she said. The final report grew out of three days of talks in a quiet country retreat last March, the climax of a yearlong dialogue spanning experts in 22 countries. It was prompted in part by the failure of a 20-year U.N. negotiating process to take decisive action to curb greenhouse gas emissions, mainly from burning fossil fuels, responsible for climate change. The slow progress of international climate negotiations has led to increased concerns that sufficient cuts in greenhouse gas emissions may not be achieved in time to avoid unacceptable levels of climate change, the report said. But geoengineering is not an alternative to climate action, said John Shepherd, a British oceanographer from the University of Southampton who was a lead author of the report. Nobody thought this provides a justification for not reducing carbon emissions, Shepherd said in a telephone interview from London. We have to stick with Plan A for the time being, and that could be a very long time indeed, he said. This would buy time for people to make the transition to a low-carbon economy. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change foresees temperatures rising as much as 6.4 degrees Celsius (11.5 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2100, swelling the seas with
Fwd: [geo] U.S. Defense Science Board Emphasizes Risk of Unilateral Climate Engineering
William and list: I happened to have received as separate notification of the DoD report you have identified below and have skimmed the 175 pages. My link was to http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/dsb/climate.pdf - and seemed to download a little faster than the one you give below. The title is Trends and Implications of Climate Change for National and International Security. There is no well defined author, but there are four staff persons from the DC-based firm Science Applications, Inc (This is NOT SAIC). The full study panel (mostly military from all the services) began work in the spring of 2010. As you noted, there is some material on China, but by far the greatest emphasis is on Africa. There are some climate impact maps for Africa that are the best I can recall seeing. (This emphasis because of the part of DoD that co-sponsored the report.) I found this to be as strong a statement on urgency as from any US government agency I can recall. Hence I think it can be important - perhaps especially in the US House - to convert the opinions of some in Congress who might believe DoD on a climate topic.. I hope a hearing can be arranged for this pretty definitive study. There is really very little in the main report on what to do, but Appendix A is entitled Climate Information System Needs, with 29 pages - and is noting that not much money really is going into climate information. Then Appendix B (Special topics) has nine pages on tipping points and Geoengineering. Not much new detail, but all fairly supportive of geoengineering. I look through these sorts of reports of course looking for Biochar, and found it only on the very last page (p138) in a diagram showing 7 CDR alternatives. The previous figure shows 6 SRM alternatives. There are probably/possibly some more errors in the text, but the only one I found was in reversing the titles of these two figures. The last few pages of the report describe the intent of the Defense Science Board committee and the membership. It seems possible that the most key person was Dr. William Howard, listed as a consultant and co-chair. The CIA was listed as a participant - and I'll bet the CIA does indeed have some good climate information they could be sharing. I searched around a bit for more DoD material on climate and found nothing as urgent or current (this report being labeled Oct. 2011). But, I found this additional report looked pretty good on monitoring CO2 emissions: http://www.fas.org/irp/agency/dod/jason/emissions.pdf There was emphasis at one site on the transmittal 2-pager from the two co-chairs - which sai d this: The recommendations fall into five main areas: • The need for developing a robust climate information system • Instituting water security as a core element of DOD strategy • Roles of the national security community, including the intelligence community, the Department of State, and the White House • Guidance and DOD organization to address the full range of international climate change-related issues and their impact on the evolution of DOD’s missions • Combatant command roles, responsibilities, and capacities I also found the report at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/72728850/Trend-and-Implications-of-Climate-Change-for-National-and-International-Security I also found that Joe Romm, a few days ago, also caught this report (see http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/11/17/370727/defense-science-board-climate-change/#jump) - but there is not much there by Joe. He doesn't make it as big a breakthrough as I am (still) thinking it is. If anyone can identify more on whether this report is really important, I think that information could be helpful to this list Ron - Original Message - From: William Pentland wpentl...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2011 7:24:35 PM Subject: [geo] U.S. Defense Science Board Emphasizes Risk of Unilateral Climate Engineering The U.S. Defense Science Board's new report on security implications of climate change concludes that there is significant potential for unilateral geoengineering activity. The discussion focuses on China's propensity to attempt modifying weather in Beijing and other areas. The full report is available at http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports2000s.htm -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
Re: [geo] Slash dot blog post
Andrew and list: I found the full original article is more interesting/important than the news article and the 70 some comments that were there a few minutes ago. The main article (free) can be found at: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044006/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044006.pdf with two links to supplementary data (the full survey questions and how they looked on the computer screen) I wonder if the authors (A M Mercer, D W Keith and J D Sharp - some presumably read this list) would be interested in seeing how this list would respond (and reporting the results back to us). The full analysis program looks like it should be ready to go. I need to do more careful reading - but so far I am most surprised that the words ocean acidification and unplanned early stoppage never appeared. Sentences #9 bothered me because CDR is part of Geoengineering and is never mentioned by name or concept: 9. Do you think that geoengineering should be used as a solution to global warming? [4 point scale: strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat agree, strongly agree, I am unsure] (To be fair, notice is given that SRM is only one part of geoengineering - but the CDR part is never mentioned. My answer to this one would cause me to look inconsistent - as this question had no space for an open-ended answer. There are a few later open-ended opportunities - and I'd like to see some of those.) In sum, I think the article is a useful start at this topic of public understanding and beliefs on SRM - especially as there is some analysis of what types of individuals are responding in two main groups. I hope the survey can be repeated with other groups who have had more exposure to the SRM topic (through Deliberative Polling or similar) and to the CDR portion as well. I repeat - I need to re-read the article. I respond now only to help others get past the news item identified by Andrew - to the article itself. Ron - Original Message - From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 4:02:36 PM Subject: [geo] Slash dot blog post http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/10/24/1941257/Public-Supports-Geo-engineering?utm_source=slashdotutm_medium=twitter The BBC is reporting that there is strong support among the public in the U.S., U.K., and Canadafor research into geo-engineering with approximately 72% respondents supporting the research (PDF). The survey was focused on solar radiation management. The article also mentions the U.K. Stratospheric Particle Injection for Climate Engineering (SPICE) project, which would inject water particles into the upper atmosphere as a prelude to spraying cooling sulphate. Researchers for the SPICE project calculate that 10-20 balloons could cool the global climate by 2C. Also mentioned in the article is the voluntary moratorium on the procedure by the international Convention on Biological Diversity. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
Re: [biochar-policy] Re: [geo] Biochar Nature paper
Sam (cc 2 lists): 1. First, thanks for forwarding my yesterday Geo message to Biochar-Policy. You raise an important question on how to proceed with getting funds for Biochar implementation. My immediate reaction is to support any official policy that is trying to accelerate CDR andBiochar, and both of your identifications/suggestions below are well worth supporting. I also support taxation - as being pushed by Jim Hansen. I would prefer that not all of the tax be reimbursed equally on a per capita basis; I would rather see some saved for supporting early demonstrations. 2. I wandered around the Australian site you gave below and was pleasantly surprised to find Biochar specifically called out in several places. However, there is no actual money for credits available - only (I think) a registration process that allows a government-monitored sale in voluntary markets. Not everything, but helpful. There is reference to CSIRO being in charge of supporting farmers (with new funds). I have been most impressed by CSIRO work with Biochar. Maybe only the UKBRC activity at Edinburg comes close to being as complete. I heard the head of the CSIRO Biochar activity (Dr. Evelyn Krull) speak last month at the regional Biochar meeting in Kyoto - and was greatly impressed by the range of work they have undertaken. They will be releasing shortly a major report that should get us much closer to being able to match up chars with soils and species. This CSIRO group is well organized, and I think they will be well able to help Australian farmers enter the voluntary market - the first country to do so. There are now quite a few Biochar reports and literature available from CSIRO. I recommend one of about 56 pages from 2009: http://www.csiro.au/files/files/poei.pdf Here is a brief quote on policy: Separate evaluations should be made for the economic and environmental sustainability of alternative biochar scenarios. If the assured carbon-equivalent gain available using biochar is positive but the economic analysis for mainstream agriculture negative, then utilisation of economic instruments – most likely carbon trading or a subsidy that ensures biochar is used in soil rather than for combustion – is essential. The introduction, expansion or revision of such instruments that place a monetary value on the utilisation or disposal of organic waste, maintenance of soil quality and support for renewable and bioenergy as a whole may then be considered. For any biochar scenario it is possible that the agronomic value for biochar is sufficient to render the economic evaluation positive, without resorting to carbon markets or Government incentives. Then concerted research effort will be sufficient to establish certainty around the extent and realisation of such benefits. [RWL: So in sum, it is great that you brought this move towards more official Australian government support for Biochar to our attention - and we now have to see if it is enough. I had missed this big event. Minor point - I learned a new (mainly Australian) word - from the official dialog leading up to passage. This Act is apparently now immune from rorting. 3. I have also been to your site given below. I believe that your feebates are essentially taxes? Ron - Original Message - From: Sam Carana sam.car...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com, biochar-policy biochar-pol...@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2011 9:50:52 PM Subject: [biochar-policy] Re: [geo] Biochar Nature paper Question: What policy framework can best encourage biochar? The Australian Government has introduced carbon credits http://www.daff.gov.au/climatechange/cfi An alternative policy framework is described at the Biochar Economy, at: http://knol.google.com/k/sam-carana/the-biochar-economy/7y50rvz9924j/88 Cheers! Sam Carana On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 2:06 PM, rongretlar...@comcast.net wrote: Greg and list: Thanks for bringing this two-year old (downloadable) Biochar paper from Nature below to the list's attention. I admire the work of Wolff, Amonette (corresponding author, responsible for the Excel work), etal. But I think they went overboard on being conservative. They say: Wherever possible, conservative assumptions were used to provide a high degree of confidence that our results represent a conservative estimate of the avoided GHG emissions achievable in each scenario.. I know three of the five authors; one of them gave a (much less-documented) estimate that was an order-of-magnitude higher. Tim Lenton has repeated this higher number. I believe the most recent paper by Jim Hansen, which I think proposes 100 GtC of new standing forests, is assuming larger land use change than is assumed in this paper, or by those promoting BECCS. In my view, there is probably one Gha available for reforestation and the paper limits the agroforestry total
Re: [geo] EU Parliament
Stephen: 1, Thanks for alerting us (below) to this scale definition issue in the CBD resolution re (both parts of) Geoengineering. Below, I will give one stab at it. First, some more background. I found the official CBD action at: http://www.cbd.int/decision/cop/?id=12299 2. The most important part for your question seems to be around footnote 76, which is part of paragraph 8(w), which reads (emphases added): 8(w) Ensure, in line and consistent with decision IX/16 C, on ocean fertilization and biodiversity and climate change, in the absence of science based, global, transparent and effective control and regulatory mechanisms for geo-engineering, and in accordance with the precautionary approach and Article 14 of the Convention, that no climate-related geo-engineering activities 76 that may affect biodiversity take place , until there is an adequate scientific basis on which to justify such activities and appropriate consideration of the associated risks for the environment and biodiversity and associated social, economic and cultural impacts, with the exception of small scale scientific research studies that would be conducted in a controlled setting in accordance with Article 3 of the Convention, and only if they are justified by the need to gather specific scientific data and are subject to a thorough prior assessment of the potential impacts on the environment; [RWL: One possible legal (I am not a lawyer) escape here (for Biochar and maybe others) is possible through the actions of the Australian government (that I just sent in separately) to officially encourage Biochar - implying (to me, the non-lawyer) that the necessary ...adequate scientific basis... , has indeed been established, through their past (maybe ten years? of) Government sponsored ...exception of small scale scientific research studies... . Were ETC and Ms Bronson to complain of a violation of this resolution, I would expect the Australian government to claim they had the required proof (and I think correctly).] 3. Footnote 76: Without prejudice to future deliberations on the definition of geo-engineering activities, understanding that any technologies that deliberately reduce solar insolation or increase carbon sequestration from the atmosphere on a large scale that may affect biodiversity ( excluding carbon capture and storage from fossil fuels when it captures carbon dioxide before it is released into the atmosphere) should be considered as forms of geo-engineering which are relevant to the Convention on Biological Diversity until a more precise definition can be developed. It is noted that solar insolation is defined as a measure of solar radiation energy received on a given surface area in a given hour and that carbon sequestration is defined as the process of increasing the carbon content of a reservoir/pool other than the atmosphere . [RWL: Certainly Biochar (and I think all of CDR) fits this definition. No precise definition will be available (and it might exclude afforestation and or reforestation) until there is further UN action - probably not for several more years. However, Biochar (and maybe others) might not qualify as large scale (your question - addressed below) until well after that date. The question of may affect biodiversity also will likely not be an escape route, even though Biochar proponents will certainly claim that the affect of Biochar will be predominantly positive (and I assume the CBD will want to encourage anything with a positive impact). But this footnote leaves open the issue of large scale - which I am sure no Biochar investigator has yet come close to violating. But encouragement through Government incentives might be so construed as already being large scale; the Australian support won't begin until December. 4. So with that background from the key CBD document, large scale will probably have to be defined in both geographic (hectares) and weight (annual megatonnes C) terms. The latter is maybe the easier to specify - getting up to 0.1% of global anthropocentric levels (10 GtC/yr) would mean about 10 MtC/yr. That would be a very large effort for a single country in the next decade. The paper by Wolff etal, introduced by Greg Rau yesterday, achieved this annual global total in about the year 9 of their projected ramp-up. The question is whether 10 MtC/yr (or an impact of 1/1000 of today's human impact in any single country) is too large or too small? In terms of geography, a comparable number might be arrived at by assuming 10 tC/ha - which would mean an annual impact of 1million ha/yr (100 sqkm new per year - or a square of 10 km x10 km). Growing (rapidly) to this level in 10 years (over maybe 100 large countries, each getting up to a 1 sq km) would seem to have given enough time at small scale. One would probably not want any individual country to go beyond 1% of their land area - without agreement that the Biochar
Re: [geo] BPC news
Greg, Ken (who gave first report earlier today and was on this panel) and List: 1. I have just read this report and think overall it is a positive contribution. I just sent off a short Report Review written from a Biochar perspective to the Yahoo Biochar-Policy list. I would be glad to send that to anyone interested. 2. I found a new-to-me Climate Strategy Context circular diagram on p 7, which I like and for which credit is given to Ken. I have these questions for Ken: a. The circle, which connects 7 smaller circles, shows a beginning and end (at the 12:00 position) with a circle labeled: DESIRE FOR IMPROVED WELL-BEING. I think it might be stronger to say one could enter the larger circle at any point in the outer circle, and that we are always going around this context circle. Was there a specific reason for your start-stop Noon-Midnight choice? b. The word Mitigation is missing. How/where would you recommend that word be applied to your diagram (so as to compare with the included Adaptation? c. Symmetry is missing because you only have labels for six of the seven possible angular arcs. Any recommendation for the missing-label red-arc preceding the top-most, ending circle? Might it be OK to somehow combine 6 and 7, or are they distinctly different to you? d. For SRM, you show Sunlight Reflection Methods, rather than the usual Solar Radiation Management almost (?) everywhere else in the panel report. Your estimation of the likelihood of your SRM preference taking over? 3. The article introduced by Greg below implies that almost nothing is happening of a Climate Remediation research character anywhere in the world. However, I guesstimate that there are several hundreds of true research Biochar projects going on with a doubling time of about a year (and maybe 10 times that many backyard type. At a recent conference, I learned there are at least 5 official Biochar subgroups in China that are talking to each other (maybe there was one a year ago). I think there are about as many subgroups in the UK and the US (one in the US three years ago). I doubt any of them think they are doing anything at all risky. Is there anyone on this list who is concerned Biochar is moving too fast and that the precautions of this BPC report need to be better heeded by the still-very-small Biochar world? Ron - Original Message - From: Greg Rau r...@llnl.gov To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2011 12:10:10 PM Subject: [geo] BPC news BPC news Still unable to link to webcast, but must be loads of fun. - G The idea of engineering the planet is “fundamentally shocking,” David Keith, an energy expert at Harvard and the University of Calgary and a member of the panel, said. “It should be shocking.” As shocking as rapidly increasing air CO2 with no end in sight? -G October 4, 2011 Group Urges Research Into Aggressive Efforts to Fight Climate Change B y C ORNELIA DEAN W ith political action on curbing greenhouse gases stalled, a bipartisan panel of scientists, former government officials and national security experts is recommending that the government begin researching a radical fix: directly manipulating the E arth’ s climate to lower the temperature. Members said they hoped that such extreme engineering techniques, which include scattering particles in the air to mimic the cooling effect of volcanoes or stationing orbiting mirrors in space to reflect sunlight, would never be needed. But in its report , to be released on Tuesday, the panel said it is time to begin researching and testing such ideas in case “the climate system reaches a ‘tipping point’ and swift remedial action is required.” The 18-member panel was convened by the Bipartisan Policy Cente r, a research organization based in Washington founded by four senators — Democrats and Republicans — to offer policy advice to the government. In interviews, some of the panel members said they hoped that the mere discussion of such drastic steps would jolt the public and policy makers into meaningful action in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, which they called the highest priority. The idea of engineering the planet is “fundamentally shocking,” David Keith, an energy expert at Harvard and the University of Calgary and a member of the panel, said. “It should be shocking.” In fact, it is an idea that many environmental groups have rejected as misguided and potentially dangerous. Jane Long, an associate director of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the panel’s co-chairwoman, said that by spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, human activity was already engaged in climate modification. “We are doing it accidentally, but the Earth doesn’t know that,” she said, adding, “Going forward in ignorance is not an option.” The panel, the Task Force on Climate Remediation Research, suggests that the White House Office of Science and
Re: [geo] BPC news [Climate Strategy Context Circle]
Ken, Greg, List: Few comments below. - Original Message - From: Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu To: rongretlar...@comcast.net Cc: r...@llnl.gov, geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2011 3:43:32 PM Subject: Re: [geo] BPC news [Climate Strategy Context Circle] Ron, The figure you refer to is attached (in three different forms). Glad you liked it. I do. 'Mitigation' as the IPCC applies the term is policies undertaken to reduce emissions or increase sinks, and thus could include conservation, efficiency, low-emission energy technologies and air capture. [RWL: And some of us see Biochar (and BECCS, but not biomass burial) in there also - as a low emission energy technology . Maybe a division of the full twelve hours into two equal parts might allow the word mitigation to denote the right hand side. Or if your circle is thought of as a 24- hour clock, the mitigation portion is the AM. This equal division is meant, of course, to also indicate that there are CDR approaches that are NOT mitigators. The idea of the day ending on the left has merit. Another division that might be worth considering is to have another shading from about 5:00 to 8:00 [or 11AM to 5 PM on a 24 hour clock] to further emphasize where Geoengineering (CDR and SRM) fit into the seven part sequence. I missed at first your color difference for 3 of the 7 circles (or really two arrows) . The red arrow was intended to show a negative influence (climate impacts negatively influence pursuit of well-being), whereas black arrows show a positive influence (i.e., more of whatever is at the base of the arrow tends to produce more of whatever is at the tip of the arrow). [RWL: Hmm. I guess accountants will catch that concept. Might also help to have arrows that grow in width except for this last one - which could be inverted. The six blue stone weapons all seem to be impedors of the increasing tendencies. Perhaps six second reverse arrows could also be added to (or replace) the six blue symbols. They could be smaller arrows and dashed. But when you get to the 7th arrow, the size and dashing could be reversed on these two arrows (or missing). This allows me to suggest that there could be a reversal of the only-negative intent of the present circle - that the size of the arrows can (must) change with time. I would like to somehow think that the first four arrows (conservation, efficiency, renewable energy and CDR) can get us to revert to an earlier simpler closed circle.] I guess for me the entry point is the desire to improve our lot (the desire for improved well-being), which is why i put that on top. [RWL: Now that I better understand that point and the subtleties here, let me give some of my thinking on indicator labels for this now-unlabeled seventh phase. I was hoping for something to distinguish between 7. IMPACTS ON HUMANS AND ECOSYSTEMS and 1. DESIRE FOR IMPROVED WELL-BEING And this seventh reverse arrow label would hopefully connote something in between Adaptation and Conservation -- and have either an energy or climate meaning/definition. Perhaps like you - I couldn't come up with one. I now see why you have the red arrow. This is more like getting to the edge of the cliff. It is more akin to the Doomsday countdown clock of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. Possible ways to accentuate the non-continuous nature of this circle (and you may want to avoid my use of the term clock) are: a. The seven circles could grow in size as you move clockwise, showing increasing negative situations. b. They could change color from green to dark red c. There could be a seventh dashed blue weapon designator with a label like No hope. d. There could be an indicator of a tipping point somewhere, preventing closure of the circle. e. There could be an earlier, simpler (closed?) circle for 50 years ago (with only positive impacts and different colors and circle sizes) before we understood the negative consequences of the CO2 associated with fossil fuels. Please feel free to try to make a better version of this figure. [RWL: I used to have access to graphics programs, perhaps as good as yours. Instead, now I can only give the ideas above for your consideration. I still like your circle as a good new way of explaining the terms and timing of the various circles and the connecting arrows. I retract my yearning last time for total symmetry. Ron Best, Ken ___ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira See our YouTube: Sensitivity of temperature and precipitation to frequency of climate forcing: Ken Caldeira Her lab, mules, and carbon capture and storage: Sally Benson speaks to Near Zero On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 1:52 PM,
Re: [geo] Re: Monbiot Claims SAI already tested ... with catastrophic results
Greg and list: Being one of your more active biochar-in-the-soil friends on this list, who is very weak in any biogeochem perspective , I had hoped someone else would jump in re your last sentence below. I have been a little active in combining Biochar and rock dust - but the (so far, minimal) emphasis of that combination has only been on the provision of growth-enhancing micronutrients. Your concerns on the safety aspects of working with CaCO3 and nitric acid don't leave me with much hope, but possibly it is worth noting that there are a few Biochar researchers working with char intentionally produced with pH levels from 4 to 12 (for soils needing to get closer to neutrality). Through this response, I will relay the question to some Biochar researcher friends who might admit to being biogeochemists. Most Biochar researchers are soil scientists; I doubt this question has come up much for that discipline. Their involvement is only rarely on the sequestration side, either - the subject of this list. But I think I can speak for most Biochar researchers that they do want to support the development and use of NETs/CDRs that do not start with biomass - which will unlikely to ever be in over-supply. And a combination in soil could hopefully be the best of all worlds. Ron - Original Message - From: Greg Rau r...@llnl.gov To: shaojun zhong shaojun.zh...@gmail.com, geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, October 1, 2011 10:47:37 PM Subject: RE: [geo] Re: Monbiot Claims SAI already tested ... with catastrophic results I'd be very careful about adding CaCO3 to 0.1M nitric acid, the reaction is strongly exothermic. I'd cut the concentration and volume by 10 - 100x for starters, wear safety glasses and conduct in a safe place like a chem hood with access to sink. Better, do at soil acid molarity. Perhaps our biochar-in-the-soil friends could offer some biogeochem perspective. Good luck. -G From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David Zhong [shaojun.zh...@gmail.com] Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2011 5:28 PM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Re: Monbiot Claims SAI already tested ... with catastrophic results Greg, Thanks for the West McBride paper. In fact, a simple high-school chemistry experiment (or my “backyard” experiment) might provide an answer to your question of how to convert the aglime practise from a CO2 source into a CO2 sink. Let’s take five 500 ml beakers, to each we add 100 ml of 0.1 M HNO3 solution (i.e., a total of 0.01 mole of HNO3 in each beaker). Then we add 0.5 g, 0.75 g, 1.0 g, 2.0 g, and 5.0 g of CaCO3 to the five beakers, respectively (or 0.005, 0.0075, 0.01, 0.02, and 0.05 mole of CaCO3, respectively). Let’s disregard reaction kinetics here and assume that all the added CaCO3 will dissolve eventually. In the first beaker, 0.005 CaCO3 + 0.01 HNO3 - 0.005 Ca2+ + 0.01 NO3- + 0.005 CO2 + 0.005 H2O CO2 emission: 0.005 mole, or 100% of the carbon from the added CaCO3 is emitted to the atmosphere. In the second: 0.0075CaCO3 + 0.01 HNO3 - 0.0075 Ca2+ + 0.01 NO3- + 0.0025 CO2 + 0.0025 H2O + 0.005 HCO3- CO2 emission: 0.0025 mole, or 33% of the carbon from the added CaCO3 may be emitted to the atmosphere. In the third: 0.01 CaCO3 + 0.01 HNO3 - 0.01 Ca2+ + 0.01 NO3- + 0.01 HCO3- CO2 emission: 0 mole, or 0% of the carbon from the added CaCO3 is emitted to the atmosphere. In the fourth: 0.02 CaCO3 + 0.01 HNO3 + 0.01 CO2 + 0.01 H2O - 0.02 Ca2+ + 0.01 NO3- + 0.03 HCO3- CO2 capture: 0.01 mole, or 50% of the added CaCO3 served to capture CO2 from atmosphere. In the fifth: 0.05 CaCO3 + 0.01 HNO3 + 0.04 CO2 + 0.04 H2O - 0.05 Ca2+ +0.01 NO3- + 0.09 HCO3- CO2 capture: 0.04 mole, or 80% of the added CaCO3 served to capture atmospheric CO2. It seems that whether the aglime practice is a source or a sink of atmospheric CO2 depends on the relative quantity of CaCO3 added to the soil to the quantity of strong acids present in (and/or added to) the soil system. I have very limited knowledge on soil acidity. My understanding is that there are three main sources of strong acids in the soil: acid rain (and/or acid pollution), nitrogen fertilizer nitrification in soil, and weathering (or oxidation) of sulfide minerals in soil and the quantity of strong acid in the soil system is generally limited (I could be wrong). Unless the addition of limestone to the soil enhances the production of strong acids in soil (e.g., enhance nitrification) and/or inhibits the acid neutralization reactions by other components in the soil system (e.g., silicate minerals), the portion of CaCO3 that is used to neutralize the strong acids in the soil system also helps to reduce CO2 emission to the atmosphere, as most of these strong acids, if not neutralized in the soil system, will eventually add to the acidity
Re: [geo] Re: New report(s) on carbon dioxide removal
Duncan, Ning, list: I wholeheartedly support the idea of sequestering through forestry products. The analysis of them is straightforward. But the potential is obviously quite limited compared to the GtC/yr values in your (Duncan's) recent report. So this seems like a good opportunity to ask Duncan what the criteria should be for evaluating different NET (CDR) options. I hope others will answer the following methodology questions as well. 2. Dr. Zeng obviously feels that ground burial is better (being cheaper as a NET (Negative Emissions Technology) and more widely applicable) than the BECCS approach which I believe Duncan has favored in his report. Duncan's likely reasoning: BECCS uses the same (tree) resource both for carbon-neutral replacement of fossil fuels at electrical power plants and then captures almost as much in a carbon-negative placement of the resulting CO2 deep underground. Presumably Duncan (maybe most on this list) would say that the large gain in carbon neutrality (with monetary income to offset part of the sequestration costs) more than balances the small (?) loss in carbon negativity. But is there a more specific definition of better here? How would Dr. Zeng rebut the argument that we need biomass for its energy content? Does it include questions about the eventual success of CCS? 3. I think almost the same questions would be asked by those favoring ocean burial of biomass. I presume that ocean or pit burial are roughly equivalent - and the preference would be based on location (and resulting cost differences). But both have foregone the carbon-neutral energy contribution. Nevertheless, I can understand both the pit and ocean burial proponents' concerns, as they are focusing on NET (carbon negativity). I hope Duncan can first address this narrow issue of combining carbon-neutrality and carbon-negativity; in discussing and comparing NETs, should carbon-neutral benefits be part of the dialog and/or exactly how should they be balanced? 4. But along comes Biochar - and it further confuses the debate by saying that other criteria should also prevail besides the neutral (Energy) - and negative carbon issue above. Biochar is almost as good as BECCS on both carbon-negativty and carbon-neutrality (much of biomass energy value is in the hydrogen content which both capture, and BECCS has some energy losses in capture). But overall, Biochar proponents can agree that BECCS is superficially able to impact more CO2 than can Biochar. But I say superficially because Biochar out-year benefits seem to have a chance of overcoming the first-year advantages of both BECCS and burial. Many of those are spelled out by Duncan, but they do not seem to have made their way into the numerical computation on either carbon neutral or carbon negative sides of the ledger. 5. I will send more on this to Duncan (others please let me know if they want to see this), but I think it likely that most readers will know that anthropogenic Amazonian Terra Preta soils (not mentioned by Duncan) are today several times more productive than the poor parent soils from which they were constructed. Increased Ag production may be replaced in some already excellent soils by a halving of fertilizer needs. Nitrous Oxide, methane, and nutrient capture are other carbon-equivalent out-year continuing benefits that do not appear in Duncan's analyses - some with long term offsetting dollar income values. The question for Duncan, Dr. Zeng and others on this list are whether these out-year CO2-climate benefits of Biochar should be included ? Or should all NET computations have the same (one year) time regime. 6. Second, whether non-CO2-related, but clear economic benefits (like increased multi-year crop yield and increased multi-year farmer income) should somehow enter into the dialog. For many in the Biochar research arena this is their main focus; NETs (carbon-negativity) are a distant second in their thinking. Increased soil productivity might obviate the need for carbon credits entirely (as was the case for the Amazonian Indians centuries ago.) This is somewhat like saying that it is important for BECCS proponents that there is an income from (carbon-neutral) electricity sales, but in this final NET (carbon-negativity) question, I am going one step further - carbon-neutrality is not involved. 7. It is my impression that Duncan has not included these last two issues when calculating a Biochar price in the curves of his Figures 5 and 7. Surprisingly, Biochar also doesn't appear in the economics of Table 10 - maybe because of these analytical hurdles. I have other questions on the potential magnitude of the Biochar resource, which I think should be larger than the other biomass options, but that is a different topic I will raise separately with Duncan. 8. Despite my questioning here, I think Duncan has done a better job than anyone else of comparing the NET options. I am
Re: [geo] Re: Monbiot Claims SAI already tested ... with catastrophic results
Oliver, Greg etal This is to support your idea below ... to distribute the rock powder on farm / pasture / forest soils , which of course is exactly what Biochar (and no other CDR/NET) does. At a recent meeting in Merida, Yucatan of the Society for Ecological Restoration (SER), the joint application of both was mentioned several times - and I believe would go over well in Biochar circles. There is mention already of rock dust in some Biochar publications, but I think only for supplying micronutrients. Can you/anyone suggest preferred minerals that can both supply nutrients and sequester slowly, per your suggestion? I recall somewhere the idea of using the pyrolysis gases from Biochar production for assisting with accelerating mineral carbonation (an alternative or supplement to the spent gases from Biochar and electric power production being sequestered ala BECCS). Those who are looking for non-fossil high temperatures for processing rock dust will find Biochar proponents anxious to talk on the production as well as the application side of these minerals. For Greg Rau: Can you give a little more information (author, date) on the Wiley cite given below; I could not make it work. At the Wiley site I did find a large number of what are likely similar sequestration articles - and a few were free and helpful. Ron - Original Message - From: Oliver Tickell oliver.tick...@kyoto2.org To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2011 1:56:13 PM Subject: [geo] Re: Monbiot Claims SAI already tested ... with catastrophic results This appears to be one of many ideas to mineralise CO2 using Mg silicate rock using an industrial reaction process. The question has to be, is this necessary or cost effective when there is a low tech, low cost alternative - to distribute the rock powder on farm / pasture / forest soils and in intertidal zones? And then let nature take its course. Depending on the rock composition, this can also help remineralise depleted soils, much as volcanic ash so often does, and raise fertility. The main argument used in favour of the industrial approach is that the natural weathering takes place very slowly, but this is incorrect. Biological processes, as noted by Lovelock in 1981 (http://www.jameslovelock.org/page29.html) accelerate the chemistry of weathering, as also does agitation / abrasion from wave action. Oliver Tickell On Sep 23, 9:18 pm, Rau, Greg r...@llnl.gov wrote: Speaking of mineral carbonation, check out:http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10./j.1530-9290.2011.00368.x/a... ;jsessionid=15DD453CB61D6B1B218D916F13507A2E.d01t01 -Greg On 9/23/11 4:40 AM, Oliver Tickell oliver.tick...@kyoto2.org wrote: Monbiot's real mistake here is to swallow the conclusion of the Royal Society report on the subject, whole and undigested, without critical scrutiny or attention to other sources of information - in particular as regards the weathering of magnesium silicate (not enough Ca silicate to bother with): Monbiot reports: Dumping lime or calcium or magnesium silicates into the sea, where they react with carbon dioxide. Fairly safe. Effective. Expensive. Has the advantage of potentially reversing ocean acidification, but the amount of quarrying required to produce enough ground-up rock is likely to be prohibitive. A) where does he get the idea that it's about dumping it in the sea? It is about spreading the rock powder on land, and in intertidal zones. B) So it's fairly safe. Why only fairly? This is just to accelerate a natural process that is going on all the time anyway. C) Expensive - how much? People who have done the sums conservatively estimate $10-15 per tCO2. Making it one of the cheapest options around. D) It will only potentially reverse ocean acidification. Well, insofar as the science of chemistry potentially applies. He seems to be implying that maybe chemistry is potentially all wrong. George, tell us more! D) The amount of quarry is likely to be prohibitive - is it? Has he done the sums? Has he asked anyone who has done the sums? Or is this just his uniformed guess? For a start there are Gt of already mined rock that can be used, in mine tailings around the world. From then on, roughly 1t of rock sequesters 1t of CO2. So you need to mine an amount of rock comparable to the amount of fossil fuel we are burning. If it's not prohibitive to mine the coal, why's it prohibitive to mine the rock? Oliver Tickell. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups geoengineering group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You
Re: [geo] RealClimate piece on sea-ice melt
Ken, list, and especially adding John Nissen [list individual most often writing on Arctic ice disappearance and clathrate consequences] 1. This is to add a bit on Arctic Ice Volume (and some notes on methane) re this message Ken kindly provided today re the Tietsche paper - which deals only with ice area and extent - not volume: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/09/the-unnoticed-melt/ 2. As I have said before, I find the latest Arctic Ice data seems to be well presented at a site findable with the name Neven. The subject of ice volume was surprisingly thoroughly explored at this very recent particular Neven blog site, http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/2011/09/piomas-august-2011.html The first part of this multi-page blog gives 7 different graphical versions of Arctic ice volume history: The plots say that about 3000 km3 were lost between 1980 and 2000, with about 8000 more since - termed exponential here, but often called quadratic. The eyeball extension of this history looks to be 100% gone by 2015 - a lot sooner than the material Ken has forwarded. (Needless to say, the September area/extent can't go to zero later than the volume.) 3. This blog has quite a few references to Tietsche's paper. I am not qualified to comment on his work or the bloggers - but there are strong positive and negative reactions - based on this group's strong interest (and I think expertise) on the observed changes on an almost daily basis - for each of the many sub-parts of the Arctic. I wish I could find similar highly motivated and knowledgeable blog participants in my own (non-geoengineering) areas of interest. Or maybe the bloggers have fooled me. 4. For example, one of the latest of the many dozens of blog entries over the last three days said information released today said data at this web site was brand new http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/minimum2011-en.pdf and another said it was already in the plots. There seems little doubt (given several more weeks of possible ice loss) that 2011 will again set a new record for minimum September ice - not likely from what I get from reading the Tietsche paper or the shorter RC guest commentary by Dirk Notz (which deal only with extent/area - and especially as seen in Fig.3 below). 5. For John Nissen, I found in reading through this blog these two helpful cites on the time history of global methane release - which of course is this list's reason for interest in this Arctic topic. http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/iadv/ccgg/graphs/ccgg.MLO.ch4.1.none.discrete.all.png http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/part_CH4.php Ron - Original Message - From: Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Friday, September 9, 2011 2:09:07 PM Subject: [geo] RealClimate piece on sea-ice melt http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/09/the-unnoticed-melt/ The unnoticed melt Filed under: • Arctic and Antarctic • Climate modelling • Climate Science — group @ 9 September 2011 Guest commentary from Dirk Notz, MPI Hamburg “Well, it’s not really good timing to write about global warming when the summer feels cold and rainy”, a journalist told me last week. Hence, at least here in Germany, there hasn’t been much reporting about the recent evolution of Arctic sea ice – despite the fact that Arctic sea ice extent in July, for example, was the lowest ever recorded for that month throughout the entire satellite record. Sea-ice extent in August was also extremely low, second only to August 2007 (Fig. 1). Whether or not we’re in for a new September record, the next weeks will show . Figure 1: Evolution of Arctic sea-ice extent in July and August from 1979 until 2011. ( NSIDC ) A rainy summer might be one reason for an apparent lack of public attention with respect to the ongoing sea-ice loss. Another reason, however, is possibly the fact that we scientists have failed to make sufficiently clear that a major loss of sea ice during the early summer months is climatologically more important than a record minimum in September. This importance of sea-ice evolution during the early summer months is directly related to the role of sea ice as an efficient cooling machine: Because of its high albedo (reflectivity), sea ice reflects most of the incoming sunlight and helps to keep the Arctic cold throughout summer. The relative importance of this cooling is largest when days are long and the input of solar radiation is at its maximum, which happens at the beginning of summer. If, like this year, sea-ice extent becomes very low already at that time, solar radiation is efficiently absorbed throughout all summer by the unusually large areas of open water within the Arctic Ocean. Hence, rather than being reflected by the sea ice that used to cover these areas, the solar radiation warms the ocean there and thus provides a
