Re: [geo] More on SRM governance

[Stephen Salter]

Florian

Thank you for some common sense.  The computer models show that after 
the termination of solar radiation management normal conditions will 
return in about ten years.   Would objectors prefer a technology that 
could NEVER be reversed?


A failure in electricity generation is serious in 20 milliseconds. A 
failure in the internet in about 20 seconds, air traffic control in 
about two minutes water purification in about two hours and food 
distribution in about two days.  Should we never have developed these 
technologies because of their termination problems?   Ten years is a 
long time to fix a spray vessel.


If  people want to have bad dreams about sudden termination they should 
check out automated stock-market trading.


Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design, School of Engineering, 
Mayfield Road, University of Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland


On 16-Oct-18 10:39 AM, Florian Caspar Rabitz wrote:


Dear all,

In light of the ongoing discussion, I just wanted to share a recent 
publication of mine that looks at the governance implications of the 
termination problem in SRM. The broader point is that the governance 
challenges associated with the termination problem are not 
particularly unusual and may even be comparable to those of other 
large-scale technological systems (which is, I should add, not 
intended to trivialize the broader difficulties and risks of SRM 
governance and implementation). The text is available from here:


https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644016.2018.1519879

A couple of ungated ones should still be available through this link:

https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/HhQ5VBSbHvvauR8AGAPp/full

All the best,

Florian

Dr. Florian Rabitz

Research Group Civil Society and Sustainability

Kaunas University of Technology

Phone: +370 676 27 532

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
.

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



--

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] More on SRM governance

[Florian Caspar Rabitz]

Dear all,

In light of the ongoing discussion, I just wanted to share a recent publication 
of mine that looks at the governance implications of the termination problem in 
SRM. The broader point is that the governance challenges associated with the 
termination problem are not particularly unusual and may even be comparable to 
those of other large-scale technological systems (which is, I should add, not 
intended to trivialize the broader difficulties and risks of SRM governance and 
implementation). The text is available from here:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644016.2018.1519879

A couple of ungated ones should still be available through this link:

https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/HhQ5VBSbHvvauR8AGAPp/full

All the best,
Florian


Dr. Florian Rabitz
Research Group Civil Society and Sustainability
Kaunas University of Technology
Phone: +370 676 27 532

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[geo] Re: [CDR] ABECCS

[Charles H. Greene]

We have published several papers (see below, especially Gerber et al., 2016) 
drawing a similar conclusion to Kenny and Flynn (2017). Algal biofuels are not 
cost competitive with fossil fuels in today’s market unless more valuable 
co-products are also produced from the same algal biomass. However, the ABECCS 
paper suggests an entirely different approach, one that produces electricity, 
heat, negative emissions, and protein for feeds and nutritional products; the 
production of algal biofuel by itself is NOT suggested. We explicitly show what 
the value of the algal product must be with a given carbon credit for 
commercial viability ("Financial break-even is achieved for product value 
combinations that include 1) algal biomass sold for $1,400/t (fishmeal 
replacement) with a $68/t carbon credit and 2) algal biomass sold for $600/t 
(soymeal replacement) with a $278/t carbon credit.”). The point of the new 
paper is not how to produce biofuel; rather, it is intended to demonstrate how 
integration with algal production can make the BECCS concept more 
environmentally sustainable and more compatible with future global nutritional 
demands.

Greene, C.H., et al. 2017. Geoengineering, marine microalgae, and climate 
stabilization in the 21st century. Earth’s Future. DOI: 10.1002/2016EF000486.
Gerber, L. N., Tester, J. W., Beal, C. M., Huntley, M. E., & Sills, D. L. 
(2016). Target cultivation and financing parameters for sustainable production 
of fuel and feed from microalgae. Environmental Science & Technology, 50(7), 
–3341. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b05381
Walsh, M.J., et al. 2016. Algal food and fuel coproduction can mitigate 
greenhouse gas emissions while improving land and water-use efficiency. 
Environ. Res. Lett. 11 (2016) 114006. DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/11/11/114006.
Greene, C.H., et al. Marine microalgae: climate, energy, and food security from 
the sea. Oceanography 29(4): 10-15.
Huntley, M.E., et al. 2015. Demonstrated large-scale production of marine 
microalgae for fuels and feed. Algal Res. 10: 249-265.
Beal, C.M., et al. 2015. Algal biofuel production for fuels and feed in a 
100-ha facility: a comprehensive techno-economic analysis and life cycle 
assessment. Algal Res. 10: 266-279.
Sills, D.L., et al. 2013. Quantitative uncertainty analysis of life cycle 
assessment for algal biofuel production. Environ. Sci. Technol. 47: 687–694.



On Oct 16, 2018, at 8:37 AM, Andrew Lockley 
mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> wrote:

The arguments made for ABECCS are seemingly contradicted on commercial grounds 
by this paper, which is available in full at 
https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s10811-017-1214-3?author_access_token=sWz5jqN7mgG1iiHHLo66wve4RwlQNchNByi7wbcMAY5ZUEP6im8fLGmlyvrlZUutCw3u_kCzPXLtmZCjP8-59jx5QegHR_GN6Vh0JS3B0tHtq0KSYpZHGPT_CtbPRW1GOz4DYowT-9zYpBnsL7MYaQ%3D%3D

Journal of Applied Phycology
December 2017, Volume 29, Issue 
6, pp 2713–2727| Cite 
as
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10811-017-1214-3

Physiology limits commercially viable photoautotrophic production of microalgal 
biofuels

  *   
Authors
  *   Authors and 
affiliations

  *   Philip Kenny
  *   Kevin J. Flynn[Email author]

  *
 *
  *
 *


  1.  1.

Open Access
Article
First Online: 13 July 2017

  *   
9Shares
  *
  *   1.8kDownloads
  *
  *   
3Citations

Abstract

Algal biofuels have been offered as an alternative to fossil fuels, based on 
claims that microalgae can provide a highly productive source of compounds as 
feedstocks for sustainable transport fuels. Life cycle analyses identify algal 
productivity as a critical factor affecting commercial and environmental 
viability. Here, we use mechanistic modelling of the biological processes 
driving microalgal growth to explore optimal production scenarios in an 
industrial setting, enabling us to quantify limits to algal biofuels potential. 
We demonstrate how physiological and operational trade-offs combine to restrict 
the potential for solar-powered algal-biodiesel production in open ponds to a 
ceiling of ca. 8000 L ha−1year−1. For industrial-scale operations, practical 
considerations limit production to ca. 6000 L ha−1 year−1. According to 
published economic models and life cycle analyses, such production rates cannot 
support long-term viable commercialisation of solar-powered cultivation of 
natural microalgae strains exclusively as feedstock for biofuels. The 

Re: [geo] LESS RAIN BUT STILL WETTER AND GREENER? October 9, 2018 By Pete Irvine, @peteirvine

[p.j.irvine]

Hi all,

Good points, everyone.

Alan, Ocean acidification is certainly a big issue, though, as you say, how 
big is a question. A couple of papers on the potential impacts of solar 
geoengineering on coral reefs suggest that temperature will be the most 
important driver of their decline - couce et al. 
and 
Kwiatkowski 
et al , The question of how 
severe ocean acidification without warming would be for ecosystems is going 
to be hard to answer! 

Stephen, Marine cloud brightening has a larger effect on the global 
hydrological cycle per degree of cooling than stratospheric aerosol 
geoengineering but you're right that due to dynamic changes results in a 
smaller reduction in continental rainfall, and in the case you show 
significant increases in regional rainfall. I wanted to focus on the role 
of vegetation but of course a full evaluation of changes in water 
availability and drought would need to look at the climate response to each 
different solar geoengineering proposal in detail.

Thanks,

Pete

On Tuesday, 16 October 2018 05:40:06 UTC-4, Stephen Salter wrote:
>
> Hi All
>
> Peter Irvine's  claim about solar engineering being likely to 'weaken the 
> the water cycle and reduce regional precipitation' may depend on what kind 
> of solar engineering we use.  He is contradicted by the result for marine 
> cloud brightening .  Camilla Stjern et al, at  
> doi.org/10.5194/acp-2017-629  show below the mean of an ensemble of nine 
> climate models.  
>
>
> The blue-green areas in figure 4 (d) show  useful increases in 
> precipitation in drought-stricken regions with most of the browner dry 
> places  being over oceans.  The experiment increased nucleus concentration 
> in cloudy areas by 50% but did not vary this through the year.  Intelligent 
> control of fleets of spray vessels with regard to the phase of monsoons and 
> El Niño events should be able to get an even more beneficial result.  The 
> 1% reductions over North America and Northern Asia will be hard to detect 
> and we would need to know the season of the reduction.
>
> The losers would be people on small low level islands but the rest of the 
> world could pay for desalination. You can even do this with energy from sea 
> waves.   Slowing sea level rise would be some  compensation.
>
> Stephen
>
>
>
> On 16-Oct-18 6:14 AM, Ken Caldeira wrote:
>
> It is interesting how the framing of the story affects our emotional 
> response to it. 
>
> At global scale, obviously, precipitation balances precipitation.
>
> If from the very beginning, people had focused on the prediction that 
> solar geoengineering would tend to moisten the boundary layer and thus 
> suppress evaporation, people would have had a very different perception of 
> the risks from decreased evaporation.
>
>
> *Ken Caldeira*
> *Carnegie Institution for Science*
> Dept of Global Ecology / Carnegie Energy Innovation
> 260 Panama St, Stanford CA 94305 USA
> +1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegiescience.edu 
> http://CarnegieEnergyInnovation.org
> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab
>
> Assistant, with access to incoming emails: Elizabeth Susskind 
> esussk...@carnegiescience.edu 
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 6:49 AM Alan Robock  > wrote:
>
>> Dear Pete,
>>
>> As you say, ocean acidification is well known, but that does not mean it 
>> is not important.  Has anyone quantified the benefits of CO2 
>> fertilization as compared to the damage from ocean acidification?   We need 
>> to stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere because of the damage to the 
>> ocean, even if it did not cause global warming.  
>>
>> By the way, you left out our paper with indeed looked at the minor 
>> benefits of CO2 on agriculture:
>>
>> Xia, Lili, Alan Robock, Jason N. S. Cole, D. Ji, John C. Moore, Andy 
>> Jones, Ben Kravitz, Helene Muri, Ulrike Niemeier, B. Singh, Simone Tilmes, 
>> and Shingo Watanabe, 2014: Solar radiation management impacts on 
>> agriculture in China: A case study in the Geoengineering Model 
>> Intercomparison Project (GeoMIP).  J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 119, 8695-8711, 
>> doi:10.1002/2013JD020630.   
>> http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/XiaGeoMIPChinajgrd51559.pdf
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> Alan Robock, Distinguished Professor
>>   Editor, Reviews of Geophysics
>> Department of Environmental Sciences Phone: +1-848-932-5751
>> Rutgers UniversityE-mail: rob...@envsci.rutgers.edu 
>> 
>> 14 College Farm Roadhttp://people.envsci.rutgers.edu/robock
>> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-8551  USA  ☮ http://twitter.com/AlanRobock
>>
>> On 10/15/2018 3:34 PM, Andrew Lockley wrote:
>>
>> Poster's note : I don't normally share blogs, but this is a thorough 
>> explanation or an often overlooked area. 
>>
>>
>>
>> https://geoengineering.environment.harvard.edu/blog/less-rain-still-wetter-and-greener
>>  
>>
>> HOME 

[geo] National Academies Launching New Study on Sunlight-Reflection Research

[Andrew Lockley]

Poster's note: get your nominations in!

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=10162018


October 16, 2018

National Academies Launching New Study on Sunlight-Reflection Research

WASHINGTON – The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
is forming a new committee to develop a research agenda and research
governance approaches
 for
climate intervention strategies that reflect sunlight to cool Earth.

The idea of curbing climate change by altering the atmosphere or clouds to
reflect sunlight back into space, before it reaches Earth and warms the
planet further, has gained increased attention as the challenge of limiting
rising global temperatures becomes more daunting.  However, the federal
government has no detailed research agenda for this field of study --
sometimes referred to as solar geoengineering -- and, even though some
teams from the U.S. and other countries are moving forward with their own
experiments, there is no agreed-upon protocol to govern such research.

The new committee, which will build upon a 2015 National Academies report

on
the issue, will study research needs and research governance in tandem.
Its focus will primarily be on strategies that involve atmospheric
interventions, including marine cloud brightening, stratospheric aerosol
injection, and cirrus cloud modification.  The committee will examine
potential impacts and risks of these interventions as well as their
technological feasibility, and will explore research governance mechanisms
at international, national, and subnational scales.

“The urgency of the climate change problem, as documented in the most
recent report  from the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change, suggests that it is very timely to take a deeper
look into the viability of these approaches,” said Marcia McNutt, president
of the National Academy of Sciences and chair of the committee that
authored the 2015 report.  “We are running out of time to mitigate
catastrophic climate change.  Although climate-intervention strategies are
not a substitute for actions to limit emissions of greenhouse gases,  some
of these interventions, such as sunlight reflection, may need to be
considered in the future, but first we need to study to them more carefully
and determine how best to govern field experiments."

Nominations for the committee, which will be appointed later this year, are
currently being accepted here
.
The committee will hold its first meeting early next year; two public
workshops will inform the study as well.  The committee will issue its
report in the first half of 2020.

The initial sponsors of the new study are the V. Kann Rasmussen Foundation,
the Christopher Reynolds Foundation, the BAND Foundation, the MacArthur
Foundation, and the National Academy of Sciences’ Arthur L. Day Fund.

Contacts:
Riya V. Anandwala, Media Relations Officer
Andrew Robinson, Media Relations Assistant
Office of News and Public Information
202-334-2138 <%28202%29%20334-2138>; e-mail n...@nas.edu

Social Media:
Follow us on Twitter: @theNASEM 
Follow us on Instagram: @theNASEM 
Follow us on Facebook: @NationalAcademies

Follow the conversation on
Twitter using #ReflectingSunlight
Read more about the study here
.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.