Re: [geo] The flawed appeal of unilateral Direct Air Capture programs to prevent climate change | Deich
Here is the New Republic article linked by Noah DeichThe Climate Agreement in
Lima Isn't Enough. Here's a Better Solution.
| |
| | | | | | | |
| The Climate Agreement in Lima Isn't Enough. Here's a Bet...This new
technology stands a better chance of reducing carbon in the atmosphere. |
| |
| View on www.newrepublic.com | Preview by Yahoo |
| |
| |
Direct Air Capture could provide CO2 input to grow algae at sea, as a
profitable scaleable negative emission technology. That is the sort of thing a
new Manhattan Project should study. But the article shows that the global
climate negotiation process is preventing such essential research by holding
the planet hostage to its flawed theories of social and political science
around impossible global agreements on emission reduction.
Robert Tulip
From: Peter Flynn peter.fl...@ualberta.ca
To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com; geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, 21 December 2014, 5:35
Subject: RE: [geo] The flawed appeal of unilateral Direct Air Capture programs
to prevent climate change | Deich
#yiv2275964106 #yiv2275964106 -- _filtered #yiv2275964106
{font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv2275964106
{font-family:Tahoma;panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}#yiv2275964106
#yiv2275964106 p.yiv2275964106MsoNormal, #yiv2275964106
li.yiv2275964106MsoNormal, #yiv2275964106 div.yiv2275964106MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv2275964106 a:link,
#yiv2275964106 span.yiv2275964106MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2275964106 a:visited, #yiv2275964106
span.yiv2275964106MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv2275964106 p
{margin-right:0cm;margin-left:0cm;font-size:12.0pt;}#yiv2275964106
span.yiv2275964106EmailStyle18 {color:#1F497D;}#yiv2275964106
.yiv2275964106MsoChpDefault {} _filtered #yiv2275964106 {margin:72.0pt 72.0pt
72.0pt 72.0pt;}#yiv2275964106 div.yiv2275964106WordSection1 {}#yiv2275964106 I
find it discouraging that so much commentary on climate change and its subset,
geoengineering, is focused on “that won’t work”, with its subset, “how will we
govern that”. I think of World War II, where humans found ways to take action
with a smaller chorus of negativity. One constant element in such commentary is
that any action (sometimes even research) will decrease the incentive for
emissions reduction, and hence such action should be not taken. I reflect on
King Canute who, when wanting to convince subjects of the limitations of his
power, went to the surf and ordered the tide not to come in. Let those
convinced of the reliable efficacy of CDR travel to China and India to convince
the masses that they shouldn’t buy a car, and report back. I hope we can reduce
worldwide emissions, but saying we shouldn’t have research and demonstration of
thoughtful contingency options strikes me as reckless. I would love to see a
demonstration scale direct capture program in any country; it would add to the
body of knowledge about the numerous choices that lie in the future. Ditto re a
biochar demonstration scale project. Ditto re many others. And I would love to
see some of the energy that goes into seemingly endless discussions of
governance shift into populating our knowledge of options. Peter Flynn Peter
Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for
EngineersDepartment of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of
Albertapeter.flynn@ualberta.cacell: 928 451 4455
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: December-20-14 9:44 AM
To: geoengineering
Subject: [geo] The flawed appeal of unilateral Direct Air Capture programs to
prevent climate change | Deich Poster's note : view online for useful graphs.
https://carbonremoval.wordpress.com/2014/12/20/the-flawed-appeal-of-unilateral-action-to/The
flawed appeal of unilateral Direct Air Capture programs to prevent climate
changeDECEMBER 20, 2014
For the past 20 years, UN-led climate change negotiations have failed to
produce an accord that halts the rise of global GHG emissions. Given this track
record, it’s easy to see the appeal of the idea proposed in a recent New
Republic article: that the US alone could prevent climate change by investing
heavily in large-scale carbon dioxide removal (“CDR”) deployments.The idea in
the article goes something like this: the US (and/or some of its developed
country allies) would fund a “Manhattan Project” for Direct Air Capture (“DAC”)
systems. DAC systems scrub CO2 from ambient air; the resulting CO2 can then be
buried deep underground, where it would be trapped in impermeable rock
formations. If DAC system costs fell substantially, the US alone could fund
massive “artificial” forests that offset large portions of global GHG
emissions.Unfortunately, there are three major problems with this plan:Problem
#1:
RE: [geo] The flawed appeal of unilateral Direct Air Capture programs to prevent climate change | Deich
I share your concern, Peter. In seeking the require blessings to move forward with RDD, we can point to the global scale demonstration of CDR already occurring. As I've pointed out before (OK, like a broken record), global atmospheric CO2 concentrations temporarily decline each year, even at the remote South Pole: http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/mauna_loa_and_south_pole/mauna_loa_and_south_pole.html Each year more than half of anthro CO2 is removed, post-emissions. So while politicians dither over the obvious need to reduce emissions, CDR is already mitigating more CO2 than any CO2 emissions reduction program, now and probably into the distant future. How can the possibility of building on this obvious and massive success be ignored in our quest to figure out how to manage air CO2? Greg From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on behalf of Peter Flynn [peter.fl...@ualberta.ca] Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2014 10:35 AM To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com; geoengineering Subject: RE: [geo] The flawed appeal of unilateral Direct Air Capture programs to prevent climate change | Deich I find it discouraging that so much commentary on climate change and its subset, geoengineering, is focused on “that won’t work”, with its subset, “how will we govern that”. I think of World War II, where humans found ways to take action with a smaller chorus of negativity. One constant element in such commentary is that any action (sometimes even research) will decrease the incentive for emissions reduction, and hence such action should be not taken. I reflect on King Canute who, when wanting to convince subjects of the limitations of his power, went to the surf and ordered the tide not to come in. Let those convinced of the reliable efficacy of CDR travel to China and India to convince the masses that they shouldn’t buy a car, and report back. I hope we can reduce worldwide emissions, but saying we shouldn’t have research and demonstration of thoughtful contingency options strikes me as reckless. I would love to see a demonstration scale direct capture program in any country; it would add to the body of knowledge about the numerous choices that lie in the future. Ditto re a biochar demonstration scale project. Ditto re many others. And I would love to see some of the energy that goes into seemingly endless discussions of governance shift into populating our knowledge of options. 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.camailto:peter.fl...@ualberta.ca cell: 928 451 4455 From: geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.commailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley Sent: December-20-14 9:44 AM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] The flawed appeal of unilateral Direct Air Capture programs to prevent climate change | Deich Poster's note : view online for useful graphs. https://carbonremoval.wordpress.com/2014/12/20/the-flawed-appeal-of-unilateral-action-to/ The flawed appeal of unilateral Direct Air Capture programs to prevent climate change DECEMBER 20, 2014 For the past 20 years, UN-led climate change negotiations have failed to produce an accord that halts the rise of global GHG emissions. Given this track record, it’s easy to see the appeal of the idea proposed in a recent New Republic article: that the US alone could prevent climate change by investing heavily in large-scale carbon dioxide removal (“CDR”) deployments. The idea in the article goes something like this: the US (and/or some of its developed country allies) would fund a “Manhattan Project” for Direct Air Capture (“DAC”) systems. DAC systems scrub CO2 from ambient air; the resulting CO2 can then be buried deep underground, where it would be trapped in impermeable rock formations. If DAC system costs fell substantially, the US alone could fund massive “artificial” forests that offset large portions of global GHG emissions. Unfortunately, there are three major problems with this plan: Problem #1: The hypothetical costs of the “mature” DAC systems described in the article are likely an order of magnitude too low. The article claims that:“If $30/ton were indeed possible, the U.S. government could construct huge forests of “artificial trees” in American deserts and absorb 30 percent of 2013’s carbon emissions for about $90 billion per year…” The problem here is that the author is quoting figures in $/t Carbon (and not $/t CO2) as is done in the rest of the article: 30/t Carbon translates to a price of less than $10/t CO2 (as a CO2 molecule weighs over three times as much as a molecule of pure C). Today, simply injecting CO2 underground and making sure it doesn’t come back up — a relatively mature process thanks to
RE: [geo] The flawed appeal of unilateral Direct Air Capture programs to prevent climate change | Deich
I find it discouraging that so much commentary on climate change and its subset, geoengineering, is focused on “that won’t work”, with its subset, “how will we govern that”. I think of World War II, where humans found ways to take action with a smaller chorus of negativity. One constant element in such commentary is that any action (sometimes even research) will decrease the incentive for emissions reduction, and hence such action should be not taken. I reflect on King Canute who, when wanting to convince subjects of the limitations of his power, went to the surf and ordered the tide not to come in. Let those convinced of the reliable efficacy of CDR travel to China and India to convince the masses that they shouldn’t buy a car, and report back. I hope we can reduce worldwide emissions, but saying we shouldn’t have research and demonstration of thoughtful contingency options strikes me as reckless. I would love to see a demonstration scale direct capture program in any country; it would add to the body of knowledge about the numerous choices that lie in the future. Ditto re a biochar demonstration scale project. Ditto re many others. And I would love to see some of the energy that goes into seemingly endless discussions of governance shift into populating our knowledge of options. 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 *Andrew Lockley *Sent:* December-20-14 9:44 AM *To:* geoengineering *Subject:* [geo] The flawed appeal of unilateral Direct Air Capture programs to prevent climate change | Deich Poster's note : view online for useful graphs. https://carbonremoval.wordpress.com/2014/12/20/the-flawed-appeal-of-unilateral-action-to/ The flawed appeal of unilateral Direct Air Capture programs to prevent climate change DECEMBER 20, 2014 For the past 20 years, UN-led climate change negotiations have failed to produce an accord that halts the rise of global GHG emissions. Given this track record, it’s easy to see the appeal of the idea proposed in a recent New Republic article: that the US alone could prevent climate change by investing heavily in large-scale carbon dioxide removal (“CDR”) deployments. The idea in the article goes something like this: the US (and/or some of its developed country allies) would fund a “Manhattan Project” for Direct Air Capture (“DAC”) systems. DAC systems scrub CO2 from ambient air; the resulting CO2 can then be buried deep underground, where it would be trapped in impermeable rock formations. If DAC system costs fell substantially, the US alone could fund massive “artificial” forests that offset large portions of global GHG emissions. Unfortunately, there are three major problems with this plan: Problem #1: The hypothetical costs of the “mature” DAC systems described in the article are likely an order of magnitude too low. The article claims that:“If $30/ton were indeed possible, the U.S. government could construct huge forests of “artificial trees” in American deserts and absorb 30 percent of 2013’s carbon emissions for about $90 billion per year…” The problem here is that the author is quoting figures in $/t Carbon (and not $/t CO2) as is done in the rest of the article: 30/t Carbon translates to a price of less than $10/t CO2 (as a CO2 molecule weighs over three times as much as a molecule of pure C). Today, simply injecting CO2 underground and making sure it doesn’t come back up — a relatively mature process thanks to decades of enhanced oil recovery efforts — costs around $10/t CO2. Even the biggest proponents of the field say that DAC systems are unlikely to cost less than $50-$100/t CO2 even when mass produced. Asking the US to pursue a $0.5-$1T unilateral DAC program seems significantly less feasible than the $100B program outlined in the article… Problem #2: The reliance on the “silver bullet” of DAC systems. There are numerous proposals for CDR systems, nearly all of which are expected to cost less than DAC systems This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t invest in developing cost-effective DAC systems, but rather that we should invest in a broad portfolio of CDR approaches alongside other GHG mitigation techniques such as renewable energy and energy efficiency. Instead of a Manhattan Project for DAC systems, a better recommendation would be to scale up ARPA-E, SunShot, and other existing applied research programs in a way that incorporates CDR approaches and can find the most cost-effective portfolio of solutions to mitigating climate change. Which all leads to… Problem #3: The biggest problem of all with the article is the the framing that a CDR research program would be a “hedge” against international climate negotiations not working. Instead, a robust CDR research agenda could
Re: [geo] The flawed appeal of unilateral Direct Air Capture programs to prevent climate change | Deich
Actually, I think the original $ values cited refer to $/tonne CO2. In addition to the problems discussed in the article, why was DAC singled out in the APS et al reports for such intense, high-profile scrutiny without any mention of or comparison to other natural and proposed CDR processes? If we already know that making supercritical CO2 from conventional flue gas is to too expensive, what then is the motivation for thinking that making sc CO2 from air (300x more dilute CO2) was relevant? To kill (in the cradle) the competition for RD $$ and markets claimed by CCS? Specifically, to show that DAC would have little relevance in the potentially lucrative CO2 EOR arena? In any case, drastically lower oil prices would seem to have squelched that little dream for the time being. What is now needed is an analysis on par with the APS and House et al (2011) reports exploring the costs, benefits, impacts, and uncertainties of the true range of CDR technologies, and a policy and RD roadmap for further evaluation and testing. And the clock is ticking. Hopefully, the NAS report will contribute, but more importantly where is the IPCC here? Greg From: Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com To: geoengineering geoengineering@googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 20, 2014 8:44 AM Subject: [geo] The flawed appeal of unilateral Direct Air Capture programs to prevent climate change | Deich Poster's note : view online for useful graphs. https://carbonremoval.wordpress.com/2014/12/20/the-flawed-appeal-of-unilateral-action-to/ The flawed appeal of unilateral Direct Air Capture programs to prevent climate change DECEMBER 20, 2014 For the past 20 years, UN-led climate change negotiations have failed to produce an accord that halts the rise of global GHG emissions. Given this track record, it’s easy to see the appeal of the idea proposed in a recent New Republic article: that the US alone could prevent climate change by investing heavily in large-scale carbon dioxide removal (“CDR”) deployments. The idea in the article goes something like this: the US (and/or some of its developed country allies) would fund a “Manhattan Project” for Direct Air Capture (“DAC”) systems. DAC systems scrub CO2 from ambient air; the resulting CO2 can then be buried deep underground, where it would be trapped in impermeable rock formations. If DAC system costs fell substantially, the US alone could fund massive “artificial” forests that offset large portions of global GHG emissions. Unfortunately, there are three major problems with this plan: Problem #1: The hypothetical costs of the “mature” DAC systems described in the article are likely an order of magnitude too low. The article claims that:“If $30/ton were indeed possible, the U.S. government could construct huge forests of “artificial trees” in American deserts and absorb 30 percent of 2013’s carbon emissions for about $90 billion per year…” The problem here is that the author is quoting figures in $/t Carbon (and not $/t CO2) as is done in the rest of the article: 30/t Carbon translates to a price of less than $10/t CO2 (as a CO2 molecule weighs over three times as much as a molecule of pure C). Today, simply injecting CO2 underground and making sure it doesn’t come back up — a relatively mature process thanks to decades of enhanced oil recovery efforts — costs around $10/t CO2. Even the biggest proponents of the field say that DAC systems are unlikely to cost less than $50-$100/t CO2 even when mass produced. Asking the US to pursue a $0.5-$1T unilateral DAC program seems significantly less feasible than the $100B program outlined in the article… Problem #2: The reliance on the “silver bullet” of DAC systems. There are numerous proposals for CDR systems, nearly all of which are expected to cost less than DAC systems This isn’t to say that we shouldn’t invest in developing cost-effective DAC systems, but rather that we should invest in a broad portfolio of CDR approaches alongside other GHG mitigation techniques such as renewable energy and energy efficiency. Instead of a Manhattan Project for DAC systems, a better recommendation would be to scale up ARPA-E, SunShot, and other existing applied research programs in a way that incorporates CDR approaches and can find the most cost-effective portfolio of solutions to mitigating climate change. Which all leads to… Problem #3: The biggest problem of all with the article is the the framing that a CDR research program would be a “hedge” against international climate negotiations not working. Instead, a robust CDR research agenda could serve as a major enabler of the success of international climate negotiations. Unilateral investments in CDR and other GHG mitigation techniques can help parties signal that they are committed to making significant GHG emission reductions, and will not free-ride off of other countries’ efforts. The article claims that
