Re: [geo] Climate model bias

[Peter Eisenberger]

I  think the problem of modelling climate change is more fundamental than
> it is too complex or even how large the biases are.
>
> Our understanding of complex systems like the earth's climate is that
> they involve feedbacks like the melting of the ice caps
> that expose darker surfaces that are more adsorbing that increase the
> warming or the release of methane . In addition complex systems are
> organized around chaotic
> attractors and while deterministic one cannot determine how a
> variable, let's say sea level rise , in one chaotic attractor organization
> will map to another.
> So from this perspective modeling the earth's climate within one chaotic
> attractor has to deal with the inherent nonlinear nature of the climate
> system
> but most important is that catastrophic climate change involves the
> transition from one chaotic attractor to another which while deterministic
> is not predictable.
> One the other hand, modeling can help identify the most important
> feedbacks that could drive the system to reorganize and focus
> our observations on them
> to determine whether they show  evidences of nonlinear growth. In fact the
> under prediction of the rate of climate change is in my opinion the result
> of such nonlinearities which in turn means catastrophic climate change has
> begun. This is a very important, most important,  finding for decision
> makers.
> By focusing our discussions instead on detail predictions and comparisons
> between models we are not only certainly going to fail but we weaken the
> most important finding
> that not only is climate change upon us but we are observing that
> catastrophic climate change has begun.
> The earths climate has an equivalent of inertia,the rate at a which it
> reorganizes, called the  Liapunov exponent.
> Our hope is that if we globally organize , mobilize, now we can act
> faster. Of course that in turn means we have to reorganize
> the complex human system to address it .
> As a side comment the above analysis would need to also be applied to the
> risks of geoengineering efforts because at a high level they all are
> changing many feedbacks.
> Reasons like solar variations do occur without catastrophic consequences
> have to be reconsidered in terms of the current climate already being
> reorganized.
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 8:18 AM Govindasamy Bala 
> wrote:
>
>> I am not at all surprised by the regional bias of this magnitude in the
>> previous generation of models. The paper says this bias is reduced in CMIP6
>> models to about 10 Wm-2. These biases are related to how global models
>> "represent" cloud properties such as cloud liquid water, liquid cloud
>> fraction, and total cloud fraction which have biases of about 10-20%. I
>> would never expect global models with a resolution of about 100 km to
>> reproduce accurately these subgrid-scale variables.  GCMs were not designed
>> to "simulate" clouds which are "represented" through parameterizations
>> using various "assumptions". GCMs are designed to only simulate large-scale
>> (~ 1000 km) features well. Models are only our attempt to explain the real
>> world and no model exists today in any branch of science that can explain
>> everything in that branch of science.
>>
>> There is nothing here to admire or find fault with modellers.  It is just
>> that the problem is too complex with too many degrees of freedom. In fact,
>> I am happy we have made unbelievable progress in the last 3-4 decades. It
>> is a work in progress (like modelling in any branch of science) and I do
>> not expect an end game anytime soon.
>> Cheers,
>> Bala
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 8:11 PM Stephen Salter  wrote:
>>
>>> Hi All
>>>
>>> A paper at
>>> https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00376-022-2036-z.pdf
>>>
>>> says that there are significant biases in simulated cloud physical
>>> properties over the Southern Ocean.
>>>
>>> Section 5 mentions a mean bias of “more than 30 Watts per square metre”
>>> lots more than I thought was the problem.
>>>
>>> However it is not clear, at least to an engineer, whether it means plus
>>> or minus 30 watts per square metre.
>>>
>>> This does not increase my admiration for climate modellers. Please help.
>>>
>>> Stephen
>>>
>>> *Professor of Engineering Design*
>>>
>>> *School of Engineering*
>>>
>>> *University of Edinburgh*
>>>
>>> *Mayfield Road*
>>>
>>> *Edinburgh EH9 3DW*
>>>
>>> *Scotland*
>>>
>>> *0131 650 5704 or 662 1180*
>>>
>>>
>>> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
>>> Scotland, with registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a
>>> th’ ann an Oilthigh Dhùn Èideann, clàraichte an Alba, àireamh clàraidh
>>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit

Re: [geo] Climate model bias

[Peter Eisenberger]

I  think the problem of modelling climate change is more fundamental than
it is too complex or even how large the biases are.

Our understanding of complex systems like the earth's climate is that
they involve feedbacks like the melting of the ice caps
that expose darker surfaces that are more adsorbing that increase the
warming or the release of methane . In addition complex systems are
organized around chaotic
attractors and while deterministic one cannot determine how a
variable, let's say sea level rise , in one chaotic attractor organization
will map to another.
So from this perspective modeling the earth's climate within one chaotic
attractor has to deal with the inherent nonlinear nature of the climate
system
but most important is that catastrophic climate change involves the
transition from one chaotic attractor to another which while deterministic
is not predictable.
One the other hand, modeling can help identify the most important feedbacks
that could drive the system to reorganize and focus our observations on
them
to determine whether they show  evidences of nonlinear growth. In fact the
under prediction of the rate of climate change is in my opinion the result
of such nonlinearities which in turn means catastrophic climate change has
begun. This is a very important, most important,  finding for decision
makers.
By focusing our discussions instead on detail predictions and comparisons
between models we are not only certainly going to fail but we weaken the
most important finding
that not only is climate change upon us but we are observing that
catastrophic climate change has begun.
The earths climate has an equivalent of inertia,the rate at a which it
reorganizes, called the  Liapunov exponent.
Our hope is that if we globally organize , mobilize, now we can act faster.
Of course that in turn means we have to reorganize
the complex human system to address it .
As a side comment the above analysis would need to also be applied to the
risks of geoengineering efforts because at a high level they all are
changing many feedbacks.
Reasons like solar variations do occur without catastrophic consequences
have to be reconsidered in terms of the current climate already being
reorganized.

On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 8:18 AM Govindasamy Bala  wrote:

> I am not at all surprised by the regional bias of this magnitude in the
> previous generation of models. The paper says this bias is reduced in CMIP6
> models to about 10 Wm-2. These biases are related to how global models
> "represent" cloud properties such as cloud liquid water, liquid cloud
> fraction, and total cloud fraction which have biases of about 10-20%. I
> would never expect global models with a resolution of about 100 km to
> reproduce accurately these subgrid-scale variables.  GCMs were not designed
> to "simulate" clouds which are "represented" through parameterizations
> using various "assumptions". GCMs are designed to only simulate large-scale
> (~ 1000 km) features well. Models are only our attempt to explain the real
> world and no model exists today in any branch of science that can explain
> everything in that branch of science.
>
> There is nothing here to admire or find fault with modellers.  It is just
> that the problem is too complex with too many degrees of freedom. In fact,
> I am happy we have made unbelievable progress in the last 3-4 decades. It
> is a work in progress (like modelling in any branch of science) and I do
> not expect an end game anytime soon.
> Cheers,
> Bala
>
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2022 at 8:11 PM Stephen Salter  wrote:
>
>> Hi All
>>
>> A paper at
>> https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00376-022-2036-z.pdf
>>
>> says that there are significant biases in simulated cloud physical
>> properties over the Southern Ocean.
>>
>> Section 5 mentions a mean bias of “more than 30 Watts per square metre”
>> lots more than I thought was the problem.
>>
>> However it is not clear, at least to an engineer, whether it means plus
>> or minus 30 watts per square metre.
>>
>> This does not increase my admiration for climate modellers. Please help.
>>
>> Stephen
>>
>> *Professor of Engineering Design*
>>
>> *School of Engineering*
>>
>> *University of Edinburgh*
>>
>> *Mayfield Road*
>>
>> *Edinburgh EH9 3DW*
>>
>> *Scotland*
>>
>> *0131 650 5704 or 662 1180*
>>
>>
>> The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in Scotland,
>> with registration number SC005336. Is e buidheann carthannais a th’ ann an
>> Oilthigh Dhùn Èideann, clàraichte an Alba, àireamh clàraidh 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 view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/DB7PR05MB56927D3815DCF39B23757FA8A74E9%40DB7PR05MB5692.eurprd05.prod.outlook.com
>> 

Re: [CDR] Re: [geo] Stopping the Flood: Could We Use Targeted Geoengineering to Mitigate Sea Level Rise?

[Peter Eisenberger]

Steve

With all due respect one needs to seperate out the process and impact of
learning by doing on costs  for things we end up doing and the many things
that
kill new ideas before we try to do them at large scale. My main point is
that we need to come together as a community concerned about a real
solution and decide
what are the core technologies one needs to address the challenges we face
and then do them ,being confident when we do them we will drive their costs
way down .

My contention is that solar energy and controlling the carbon cycle by DAC
are two such core capabilities and we should all agree to support doing
them knowing that the costs
will come way down . I personally estimated over 30 years ago  on the basis
of the cost of materials ( the learning curve limit for large scale units
where the nth plus 1 unit manufacturing costs approach the material costs )
that  the learning curve limit for concentrated solar thermal was 1cts per
kwhr . Now Shell agrees with that assessment. I can do the same for DAC and
come to $10 per tonne . So I do beleive the only barrier we have for both
those core capabilities is the decision to do them -commit the human and
financial resources . All this wringing of hands that DAC will be too
costly is completely misquided . As the new US academy study will assert
$10 per tonne DAC is feasible. We should all
come together and do it . Of course we need to do other things but they in
turn will become easier as the new lower cost core capabilities are
achieved.
With best regards,
Peter

On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 2:18 AM, Steve Rayner 
wrote:

> Gents
>
>
>
> Permit me a precautionary note. The Royal Society Report noted,
> subsequently confirmed by the Climate Geoengineering Governance Project,
> that all of the cost estimates for geoengineering technologies were
> overdetermined by the input assumptions ( http://www.geoengineering-
> governance-research.org/perch/resources/workingpaper13mackerroncostsan
> deconomicsofgeoengineering.pdf ). CGG also noted that project costs are
> almost invariably subject to the phenomenon of “appraisal optimism”.
> Furthermore, historical generalisations, S-curves, etc. are based on
> innovations that made it and are simply patterns. There is no inevitability
> that any technology will follow such a path, indeed, most patents are death
> certificates.
>
>
>
> I’m not trying to be pessimistic, just urging a little caution.
>
>
>
> Best
>
>
>
> Steve Rayner
>
> James Martin Professor of Science & Civilisation
>
> Institute for Science, Innovation & Society
>
> Professorial Fellow, Keble College
>
> University of Oxford
>
> 64 Banbury Road
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=64+Banbury+Road+%0D%0A+Oxford,+OX2+6PN=gmail=g>
>
> Oxford, OX2 6PN
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=64+Banbury+Road+%0D%0A+Oxford,+OX2+6PN=gmail=g>
>
> T: +44 (0)1865 288938
>
> E: steve.ray...@insis.ox.ac.uk
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: * on behalf of Peter Eisenberger <
> peter.eisenber...@gmail.com>
> *Reply-To: *"peter.eisenber...@gmail.com" 
> *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 10:00
> *To: *Andrew Lockley 
> *Cc: *Mike MacCracken , geoengineering <
> geoengineering@googlegroups.com>, Carbon Dioxide Removal <
> carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com>
> *Subject: *Re: [CDR] Re: [geo] Stopping the Flood: Could We Use Targeted
> Geoengineering to Mitigate Sea Level Rise?
>
>
>
> previous left early
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 1:54 AM, Peter Eisenberger <
> peter.eisenber...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  I agree completely and more generally wehave now witnessed many examples
> of new emergent technolgies reaching scale by following the recipe
> described
>
> by Andcrew that we should be able to count on it ,consider it a part of
> the human innovation process with leerning by doing the usual driver.
> However as Andrew indicates
>
> when in a transition in the industrial ecology (eg sources of energy new
> processses like DAC and new manufacturing capability , robotics one has a
> second driver - the benefit
>
> of other advances . So as Andrew suggesred DAC will benefit greatly from
> reduced energy costs . If Shells prediction of 1 cts per kmhr solar were to
> be realized the cost of DAC will be under
>
> $25 per tonne instead of under $50 per tonne and if robotic manufacting nt
> to say installation becomes lower cost it is possible that $10 per tonne
> DAC can be achieved.
>
> This is in fact no more remarkable than 1 cts per kwhr solar
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 12:33 AM, Andrew Lockley 
> wrote:
>
> Like any successful emergent technology, DAC will probably scale through
> high-cost edge-case uses. Initially, nobo

Re: [CDR] Re: [geo] Stopping the Flood: Could We Use Targeted Geoengineering to Mitigate Sea Level Rise?

[Peter Eisenberger]

previous left early

On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 1:54 AM, Peter Eisenberger <
peter.eisenber...@gmail.com> wrote:

>  I agree completely and more generally wehave now witnessed many examples
> of new emergent technolgies reaching scale by following the recipe described
> by Andcrew that we should be able to count on it ,consider it a part of
> the human innovation process with leerning by doing the usual driver.
> However as Andrew indicates
> when in a transition in the industrial ecology (eg sources of energy new
> processses like DAC and new manufacturing capability , robotics one has a
> second driver - the benefit
> of other advances . So as Andrew suggesred DAC will benefit greatly from
> reduced energy costs . If Shells prediction of 1 cts per kmhr solar were to
> be realized the cost of DAC will be under
>
$25 per tonne instead of under $50 per tonne and if robotic manufacting nt
to say installation becomes lower cost it is possible that $10 per tonne
DAC can be achieved.
This is in fact no more remarkable than 1 cts per kwhr solar

>
>
> On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 12:33 AM, Andrew Lockley 
> wrote:
>
>> Like any successful emergent technology, DAC will probably scale through
>> high-cost edge-case uses. Initially, nobody tried to make mobile phones
>> affordable for African cattle farmers, they tried to make them affordable
>> for rich Western businessmen.
>>
>> You don't need high volumes initially, to start seeing major costs
>> reductions. The learning curve is usually dependent on volume doubling - so
>> rapid proportional growth from a low base is sufficient.
>>
>> It's often forgotten that DAC costs are hugely dependent on energy costs.
>> These will fall rapidly, as both solar and batteries have their own
>> experience curve effects.
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>> PS if anyone has decent cost estimates for mid century solar, let me
>> know. Module costs are falling reliably, but it's hard to project the
>> impact on industrial or domestic electricity costs, as solar modules are
>> only one part of the costs structure.
>>
>> On Mon, 6 Aug 2018, 02:31 Michael MacCracken, 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In that we are already in an overshoot situation given the objective of
>>> the UNFCCC and we want to be in overshoot the least amount of time possible
>>> given the acceleration of loss of ice sheet mass and increase in extreme
>>> weather and precipitation, I would hope all would also agree that it is
>>> essential to be working toward early, gradual deployment of climate
>>> intervention approaches  to push warming back down toward less than 0.5 C
>>> as soon as possible, with DAC, in addition to aggressive mitigation, being
>>> a vital component of an envisioned exit strategy to be scaled up as quickly
>>> as practicable.
>>>
>>> "The fact is that all that is needed is the decision to do itI [too]
>>> would hope all the very talented and positively motivated geoengineering
>>> community will throw their support behind a strong global effort .."
>>>
>>> Peter E--In my view, there is also the need to avoid very serious
>>> impacts that are building now, so very early forcing down of the
>>> temperature as well as dealing with the higher CO2 concentration over the
>>> time it will take to build up and do this in the manner that you focus on.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/5/18 4:30 PM, Peter Eisenberger wrote:
>>>
>>> I can tell you that there is a major change going on with reapect to
>>> negative emissions and DAC in particular,. After years of neglect all the
>>> major players
>>> are showing alot of interest in negative emissions and DAC in
>>> particular. This spans the large petro chemical companies , the
>>> goovernments and international efforts - I do not have the time to document
>>> this for you so
>>> you can ignore the input but neverthe less it is happening and the
>>> change is dramatic. I think as the world takes NETs more seriously a
>>> quesion will emerge for the SRM supporters. Again for the record I support
>>> research on SRM but
>>> oppose using the possible failure of NETS as the basis for the effort.
>>> The fact is that all that is needed is the decsion to do it,  do NET with
>>> DAC playing a big role. I am optimisitic that the academy study that is
>>> coming out will
>>> provide an additional strong impetus for getting together and doing NET.
>>> I hope all the very talented and positively motivated geoengineering
>

Re: [CDR] Re: [geo] Stopping the Flood: Could We Use Targeted Geoengineering to Mitigate Sea Level Rise?

[Peter Eisenberger]

 I agree completely and more generally wehave now witnessed many examples
of new emergent technolgies reaching scale by following the recipe described
by Andcrew that we should be able to count on it ,consider it a part of the
human innovation process with leerning by doing the usual driver. However
as Andrew indicates
when in a transition in the industrial ecology (eg sources of energy new
processses like DAC and new manufacturing capability , robotics one has a
second driver - the benefit
of other advances on ea

On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 12:33 AM, Andrew Lockley 
wrote:

> Like any successful emergent technology, DAC will probably scale through
> high-cost edge-case uses. Initially, nobody tried to make mobile phones
> affordable for African cattle farmers, they tried to make them affordable
> for rich Western businessmen.
>
> You don't need high volumes initially, to start seeing major costs
> reductions. The learning curve is usually dependent on volume doubling - so
> rapid proportional growth from a low base is sufficient.
>
> It's often forgotten that DAC costs are hugely dependent on energy costs.
> These will fall rapidly, as both solar and batteries have their own
> experience curve effects.
>
> Andrew
>
> PS if anyone has decent cost estimates for mid century solar, let me know.
> Module costs are falling reliably, but it's hard to project the impact on
> industrial or domestic electricity costs, as solar modules are only one
> part of the costs structure.
>
> On Mon, 6 Aug 2018, 02:31 Michael MacCracken, 
> wrote:
>
>> In that we are already in an overshoot situation given the objective of
>> the UNFCCC and we want to be in overshoot the least amount of time possible
>> given the acceleration of loss of ice sheet mass and increase in extreme
>> weather and precipitation, I would hope all would also agree that it is
>> essential to be working toward early, gradual deployment of climate
>> intervention approaches  to push warming back down toward less than 0.5 C
>> as soon as possible, with DAC, in addition to aggressive mitigation, being
>> a vital component of an envisioned exit strategy to be scaled up as quickly
>> as practicable.
>>
>> "The fact is that all that is needed is the decision to do itI [too]
>> would hope all the very talented and positively motivated geoengineering
>> community will throw their support behind a strong global effort .."
>>
>> Peter E--In my view, there is also the need to avoid very serious impacts
>> that are building now, so very early forcing down of the temperature as
>> well as dealing with the higher CO2 concentration over the time it will
>> take to build up and do this in the manner that you focus on.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/5/18 4:30 PM, Peter Eisenberger wrote:
>>
>> I can tell you that there is a major change going on with reapect to
>> negative emissions and DAC in particular,. After years of neglect all the
>> major players
>> are showing alot of interest in negative emissions and DAC in particular.
>> This spans the large petro chemical companies , the goovernments and
>> international efforts - I do not have the time to document this for you so
>> you can ignore the input but neverthe less it is happening and the change
>> is dramatic. I think as the world takes NETs more seriously a quesion will
>> emerge for the SRM supporters. Again for the record I support research on
>> SRM but
>> oppose using the possible failure of NETS as the basis for the effort.
>> The fact is that all that is needed is the decsion to do it,  do NET with
>> DAC playing a big role. I am optimisitic that the academy study that is
>> coming out will
>> provide an additional strong impetus for getting together and doing NET.
>> I hope all the very talented and positively motivated geoengineering
>> community will throw their support behind
>> a strong global effort for NET and adopt the factually correct
>> perspective that if we develop a global consencus and work together we can
>> get this done, eg limit the time we spend in the overshoot CO2 condition.
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 2:08 AM, Andrew Lockley > > wrote:
>>
>>> Stopping the Flood: Could We Use Targeted Geoengineering to
>>> Mitigate Sea Level Rise?
>>> Michael J. Wolovick1
>>> and John C. Moore2,3
>>> 1Atmosphere and Ocean Sciences Program, Department of Geosciences,
>>> Princeton University, GFDL, 201 Forrestal Road,
>>> <https://maps.google.com/?q=201+Forrestal+Road,+%0D%0A+++Princeton,+NJ+08540,+USA=gmail=g>
>>> Princeton, NJ 08540, USA
>

Re: [geo] Stopping the Flood: Could We Use Targeted Geoengineering to Mitigate Sea Level Rise?

[Peter Eisenberger]

I can tell you that there is a major change going on with reapect to
negative emissions and DAC in particular,. After years of neglect all the
major players
are showing alot of interest in negative emissions and DAC in particular.
This spans the large petro chemical companies , the goovernments and
international efforts - I do not have the time to document this for you so
you can ignore the input but neverthe less it is happening and the change
is dramatic. I think as the world takes NETs more seriously a quesion will
emerge for the SRM supporters. Again for the record I support research on
SRM but
oppose using the possible failure of NETS as the basis for the effort. The
fact is that all that is needed is the decsion to do it,  do NET with DAC
playing a big role. I am optimisitic that the academy study that is coming
out will
provide an additional strong impetus for getting together and doing NET. I
hope all the very talented and positively motivated geoengineering
community will throw their support behind
a strong global effort for NET and adopt the factually correct perspective
that if we develop a global consencus and work together we can get this
done, eg limit the time we spend in the overshoot CO2 condition.

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 2:08 AM, Andrew Lockley 
wrote:

> Stopping the Flood: Could We Use Targeted Geoengineering to
> Mitigate Sea Level Rise?
> Michael J. Wolovick1
> and John C. Moore2,3
> 1Atmosphere and Ocean Sciences Program, Department of Geosciences,
> Princeton University, GFDL, 201 Forrestal Road,
> Princeton, NJ 08540, USA
> 2College of Global Change and Earth System Science, Beijing Normal
> University, Beijing, China
> 3Arctic Centre, University of Lapland, Finland
> Correspondence: M.J. Wolovick (wolov...@princeton.edu)
> Abstract. The Marine Ice Sheet Instability (MISI) is a dynamic feedback
> that can cause an ice sheet to enter a runaway collapse.
> Thwaites Glacier, West Antarctica, is the largest individual source of
> future sea level rise and may have already entered the
> MISI. Here, we use a suite of coupled ice–ocean flowband simulations to
> explore whether targeted geoengineering using an
> artificial sill or artificial ice rises could counter a collapse.
> Successful interventions occur when the floating ice shelf regrounds
> 5 on the pinning points, increasing buttressing and reducing ice flux
> across the grounding line. Regrounding is more likely with a
> continuous sill that is able to block warm water transport to the
> grounding line. The smallest design we consider is comparable
> in scale to existing civil engineering projects but has only a 30% success
> rate, while larger designs are more effective. There
> are multiple possible routes forward to improve upon the designs that we
> considered, and with decades or more to research
> designs it is plausible that the scientific community could come up with a
> plan that was both effective and achievable. While
> 10 reducing emissions remains the short-term priority for minimizing the
> effects of climate change, in the long run humanity may
> need to develop contingency plans to deal with an ice sheet collapse.
>
> --
> 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.
>



-- 
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: This email message and all attachments contain
confidential and privileged information that are for the sole use of the
intended recipients, which if appropriate applies under the terms of the
non-disclosure agreement between the parties.

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

Re: [geo] (really quite astonishing) Tweet from Dr Naomi Wolf (@naomirwolf)

[Peter Eisenberger]

Clearly spreading uninformed information about SRM needs to be confronted.
But in doing so we should as scientists not act naive as if we are
surprised that people have fears about
injecting stuff into the air and not react as to transfer their fears into
them being a bad person or generally personalize the response. Rather a
response that acknowledges that scientists can understand their fears
and accept the responsibility to adddress them and make sure what we do is
safe. In that regard we should correct the misinformation and list all the
effforts being made to make sure what is done will be done safely
with concern for any adverse health impact being front and center in our
concerns. It is upsettng that the Dr Strangelove view of scientists still
persisits after all the positive things science has done to make peoples
lives safer and better.
But the fact is that it does exist and we scientists deal with facts so
taking a factual approach with empathy for their fears and the telling them
the effort  we make to address them (not give impression they have no
basis) offers the best approach for the public to appreciate science and
feel good that we share their concerns and take them into account in what
we do . In that regard a good hsitory lesson might be to study all the
debate about doing the first research on genetic modification that has many
similarities with this issue - one thing they did was set up a group that
included both scientists and lay persons to adddress the concerns about the
safety of doing genetic modification work. If you then see the first labs
for doing such research you will get some idea
of how far one needs to go in the first attempts to address fears.

I too share great concern for the adverse impact on David and his family
and we all must completely oppose such reactions as being totally
unacceptable. But that is different than how we deal with the naomis of
this world and more generally the educated lay person.  We have a very
clear lesson of failure to take into account the difference between fears
and demonizing the fearful in the last US elections.Hopefully we can do
better than that.

On Sat, Jun 23, 2018 at 11:14 AM, Andrew Lockley 
wrote:

> This twitter fisticuffs between David Keith and Naomi Wolf is worth
> looking at. She's a twitter-verified (62k), multi-bestselling author making
> some utterly outlandish allegations against David and Gernot Wagner. David
> comes back, quite rightly, stating that this kind of misinformation puts
> him and his family's safety at risk. I couldn't agree with David more -
> this stuff is bait for the unhinged, and scientists cannot ordinarily hide
> their locations, afford close protection, or carry arms.
>
> IANAL, but this would seem to be libel under UK law - although it's
> unclear whether such an action could be brought in the UK.
>
> Naomi asked me for an interview after I called her out; I'd appreciate
> feedback on whether that's wise.
>
> Andrew
>
> Dr Naomi Wolf (@naomirwolf) tweeted at 5:21 am on Sun, Jun 10, 2018:
> "Don't blame the scientists"? My child has serious respiratory issues and
> @DKeithClimate, @GernotWagner and @Harvard are spraying alumina and/or
> sulphates, a pollutant, at tropospheric level -- WHICH WILL REACH US  -- to
> "unknown environmental effect." This is a criminal act.
> (https://twitter.com/naomirwolf/status/1005666203975782400?s=03)
>
> --
> 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.
>



-- 
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: This email message and all attachments contain
confidential and privileged information that are for the sole use of the
intended recipients, which if appropriate applies under the terms of the
non-disclosure agreement between the parties.

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

Re: [geo] How do we categorise carbon removal? (C2G2)

[Peter Eisenberger]

Mark

It is as you say unfortunately true that we do not focus only on what a
paticular approach does but unfortunately  also how it is characterized. In
human affairs such approaches result in discriminations of all kinds. It is
truly a sad day to see the science community and the climate policy
apparratus legitimize, in fact practice such discrimination in their
dialoques and decision making. I personally find those that introduce
concepts like moral hazards are particularly agregious in distorting our
efforts to make informed decisions matched only by climate deniers. I for
one think we should all hold the line on focusing on what are the cost and
benefits of diffferent decisions.  Use our rapidly growing understanding
and knowledge where we have them and acknowledging uncerrtainty where it
exists.

Now I do realize that the best we can likley do is to resist the
generalizations that labels bring . On the issue of  carbon removal there
is one perspective missing in your analysis .
One of the distinctive properties of CO2 is that it distributes itself
uniformly and so removing a CO2 molecular by flue gas capture and by Direct
Air Capture have identical impacts - and are thus both pure mitigation
approaches . The only distinction is that DAC can remove CO2 that was
previouslly emitted by flue gas so it has the additional capability to deal
with overshoot. In  this frame DAC is clearly not geoengineering any more
than any human activity is geoengineering because as allknow too well small
emissions by individuals when there are billions of us is geoengineering
our plant by changing its climate .

So I encourage us all to fight generalizing this complicated challenge we
face by not practicing it ourselves. Instead lets all focus on the
specifics -eg why does SRM have a greater risk of unintended consequences
than for example DAC and why does SRM deal with the sympto of climate
change while DAC deals with the core problem. Those are the real reasons to
favor DAC over SRM and not because one is geoengineering and the other is
not.

Thanks for your effort to promote this important dialoque

Peter

On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 7:59 AM, Mark Turner 
wrote:

> A thought piece raising the questions we are asking ourselves in C2G2.
>
> Geoengineering? Mitigation? Something else altogether?
>
> https://www.c2g2.net/categorise-carbon-removal/
>
> --
> 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.
>



-- 
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: This email message and all attachments contain
confidential and privileged information that are for the sole use of the
intended recipients, which if appropriate applies under the terms of the
non-disclosure agreement between the parties.

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

Re: [geo] Intention matters in Climate Engineering

[Peter Eisenberger]

Klaus
Well said !
Peter

On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 10:16 AM, Klaus Lackner 
wrote:

> I get it, and I get that intentions matter.  On the other hand, we are
> globally engineering and energy system (rather than a climate system).  It
> certainly has in aggregate geo-engineering scale, and also individual
> companies operate on truly global scale.  That said, this is a form of
> geo-engineering, which deliberately ignores the climate consequences.  So
> maybe we are not geo-engineering the Earth Climate, but we have created an
> energy flux that is about 4 orders of magnitude larger than “natural”
> energy fluxes flowing into the metabolism of members of a mammalian
> species.  We consume in the developed countries about 100 times as much
> energy per capita as our own metabolism consumes, and in part because of
> it, we are able to attain a population density that is hundred times higher
> than that of other mammals our size.  It also turns out that species of
> different size have comparable energy consumption per unit area of land.
> We humans have engineered a system that provides a four orders of magnitude
> larger energy input.
>
>
> So we are geo-engineering, and we ignore the consequences on the climate.
>
>
>
> Klaus
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: * on behalf of Christopher
> Preston 
> *Reply-To: *"christopherpreston1...@gmail.com" <
> christopherpreston1...@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, February 20, 2018 at 7:53 PM
> *To: *geoengineering 
> *Subject: *[geo] Intention matters in Climate Engineering
>
>
>
> An introductory blog piece about why intention makes a difference in
> climate forcing.
>
>
>
> https://plastocene.com/2018/02/20/philosopher-meets-
> meteorologist-to-talk-about-climate-engineering/
>
> --
> 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.
>



-- 
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: This email message and all attachments contain
confidential and privileged information that are for the sole use of the
intended recipients, which if appropriate applies under the terms of the
non-disclosure agreement between the parties.

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

Re: [geo] Federal Budget Bill Includes Massive Tax Credits for Carbon Capture

[Peter Eisenberger]

For me the key thing was for the first time DAC was included . This will
enable a level playing field with CCS (flue) and i predict will result in
finally getting rid of the fantasy of clean coal
(or natural gas for that matter) as both the ecomomic and environmetal
benefits of DAC followed by beneficial use are demonstrated . We at GT are
in the process of demonstrating CO2 from air to plastic and to
fertizer (replacing the energy intensive Haber Bosch process) and producing
biochar that seqiesters the carbon.. Carbon fiber from CO2 from the air is
not too far in the future . In the end i hope only negative carbon will
qualify for credits and LAC will be truly cradle to grave and show what a
farce EOR really is
It boggles my minfd that you can take CO2 out of a natural dome , pipe line
it for many hundreds of miles , stick it underground where it started and
push out oil that burns and adds CO2 and gets tax credit for ptting about
30% of it
where it started . This is the legacy we live with because of the many
years of policy and DOE focus on clean coal .

On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 2:29 PM, Hawkins, David  wrote:

> It's a bit more complicated.
> Yes, a tax credit for CCS with no EOR eligible would be better.  Better
> still would be a bill requiring CCS on fossil plants older than X years.
> But such bills can't be enacted this year and won't be until there is a big
> shift in US politics.  So choice for this year was this bill or nothing.
> Opinions can (and do ) differ on this choice.  But there is value in buying
> down the cost of CCS.  As for impact on oil production: a barrel of EOR oil
> incented by this bill will be coupled with a CO2 reduction from industrial
> capture and thus have a lower CO2 intensity than any other barrel of oil.
> So the net CO2 impact will be driven by the amount of other oil the
> incremental EOR barrel displaces.  This is uncertain but the math is easy
> to figure out how much displacement is required to achieve net reductions.
> One additional point to note: there is a lot of EOR going on today in the
> US.  80% of the CO2 used for that production is extracted from natural
> reservoirs.  The tax credit in the bill for captured CO2 makes captured CO2
> less costly than buying "natural reservoir" CO2.  Shifting from natural to
> captured CO2 for whatever EOR happens is also a plus.
> The bill requires regulations be written to demand a demonstration of
> secure geological storage for any CO2 used in EOR.
> David
> -Original Message-
> From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@
> googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Jonathan Marshall
> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 5:13 PM
> To: geoengineering ;
> andrew.lock...@gmail.com
> Subject: Re: [geo] Federal Budget Bill Includes Massive Tax Credits for
> Carbon Capture
>
>
> So yes there is money for CC, and no money or help for decreasing
> emissions.
>
> And not surprisingly "Enhanced oil recovery (EOR), an important pathway to
> geologic carbon dioxide sequestration" in other words using CO2 to increase
> oil production and produce more emissions, probably without bothering to
> see whether the CO2 being used stays down the wells or not?
>
> This could be a political decision to keep pollution going, rather than to
> increase research.
>
> jon
> 
> From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
> on behalf of Andrew Lockley 
> Sent: Thursday, 15 February 2018 9:07 AM
> To: geoengineering
> Subject: [geo] Federal Budget Bill Includes Massive Tax Credits for Carbon
> Capture
>
> https://www.triplepundit.com/2018/02/federal-budget-bill-
> includes-tax-credits-carbon-capture/
>
> Federal Budget Bill Includes Massive Tax Credits for Carbon Capture
>
>
> Friday’s short government shutdown culminated in a potentially huge win
> for the climate, business and investors. Among a slew of spending and tax
> credits tucked into the budget bill 115/bills/hr1892/BILLS-115hr1892enr.pdf> signed by U.S. President Trump,
> one of them, known as 45Q blog-posts/2017/7/13/the-future-of-ccus?rq=future%20act>, expands tax
> incentives for carbon capture, including from the air.  With advocates from
> both sides of the aisle blog-posts/2017/7/13/the-future-of-ccus>, the act shows bipartisan
> support for carbon capture technology. The policy also signals a shift
> toward greater development and deployment for something known as carbon
> dioxide removal.
>
> Broadly speaking, carbon dioxide removal involves two crucial steps:
> trapping carbon dioxide (the main greenhouse gas causing climate change)
> and reliably storing it. For every qualifying project, 45Q generates a tax
> credit: $50 per ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) buried in 

Re: [geo] Fwd: Geoengineering and Capitalism

[Peter Eisenberger]

In the paper 
http://www.chichilnisky.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Energy-Security-Economic-Development-and-Global-Warming-Addressing-short-and-long-term-challenges-2009..pdf


is formalized the relationship between technology development and economics 
where the feedback is positive
The more development ( based upon renewable energy hydrogen from water and 
carbon from the sky ( like nature does ) 
the better the climate and environment become .

There is no doubt as modern cellphones demonstrate that technology has economic 
and social implications but if instead of technology defining our future we 
define technology to give us the future we want 
This new type of innovation which I call Mindful Innovation is discussed at 
https://elkcoastinstitute.org/

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 31, 2018, at 1:10 PM, Daniel B Kirk-Davidoff  wrote:
> 
> Hi all, 
> 
> I reached out to the authors of that paper on geoengineering and capitalism.  
>  With their permission, I'm forwarding the conversation.  
> 
> Best, 
> Dan 
> 
> --
> Daniel Kirk-Davidoff
> 35 Dove St.
> Albany, NY 12210
> 518-434-0873
> 
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Gunderson, Ryan 
> Date: Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 12:37 PM
> Subject: Re: Geoengineering and Capitalism
> To: Daniel Kirk-Davidoff 
> Cc: Diana Lynne Stuart , Brian Craig Petersen 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Dan,
> 
> You’re not boring me and I appreciate your suggestions and comments. I think 
> this will be become one of the most important discussions of the 21st 
> century. Though this may have to be my last email so I don’t distract myself 
> from research too much.
> 
> Regarding the intentions of GE advocates and GE as a fringe science: I’m 
> surprised by your comment that most GE advocates identify as enemies of the 
> fossil fuel industry. I’m surprised for two reasons. First, this is not a 
> common theme in the case for GE. The research on framing is fairly 
> consistent: economics and techno frames are core, though I understand that 
> there are moral cases too. I wouldn’t be surprised if the frame you’re 
> pushing catches on: GE-is-a 
> tool-for-climate-justice-and-opposition-to-it-is-a-reflection-of-privilege. 
> Biotech pushes the same narrative. The second reason I’m surprised is it 
> seems that the fossil fuel industry is supportive of GE, given that they fund 
> many GE supporters (Hamilton 2013).
> 
> One thing worth considering is that the concrete intentions of GE scientists 
> are relatively unimportant. But this requires a distinction between 
> subjective intentions and meaning-making, on the one hand, and unintended 
> outcomes and social structure on the other. For example, in the unlikely case 
> that every current GE scientist that reads our paper were convinced that GE 
> is a tool for the reproduction of capitalism and detrimental to mitigation 
> (though from your review of the listserv's reception, this seems very 
> unlikely), I bet other bodies and minds will fill their roles for reasons 
> argued in the paper. It may be a fringe science now but it will only grow 
> along with GDP and the burning of fossil fuels. At the risk of sounding 
> deterministic, I think SRM is almost fated if capitalism lumbers on, 
> regardless of, or even in spite of, the intentions of GE scientists. To give 
> a seemingly unrelated example. When I teach a class my intention is to foster 
> critical thinking skills, to pass on facts about society and the environment, 
> to get kids to look at the world in new ways, etc. But perhaps what I’m 
> actually doing, despite these intentions, is creating the next generation of 
> worker-consumers that are punished if they don’t show up on time and follow 
> directions.
> 
> Regarding jargon and style/polemics: I’m genuinely sorry to hear that the 
> paper was cast off as jargony. We strive to make critical theory as clear as 
> possible. It’s a difficult tradition to digest, but that's the nature of 
> nearly all German philosophy and sociology. The distinction between essence 
> and appearance is older than Plato, it just takes a slightly different form 
> since Hegel.  Marcuse is firmly rooted in the Western tradition and committed 
> to the goals of the Enlightenment. The “this is silly pomo crap so I’m going 
> to read further” doesn’t fit. Historically, scientists have read philosophy 
> closely. If Einstein could regularly quote Spinoza and Schopenhauer, I think 
> GE scientists can take some time to think through new concepts and arguments 
> (technology embodies values, these values are restricted by social structure, 
> etc.). All GE advocates have an implicit theory of technology even if they 
> never justify it and it is taken to be commonsense. Feenberg’s Questioning 
> Technology is highly recommended for engaging in the very long 

Re: [geo] A Critical Examination of Geoengineering. Economic and Technological Rationality in Social Context

[Peter Eisenberger]

For what it is worth here is my 2 cts

History is clear that human organizations have evolved much like other
living systems. That evolution has had a consistent direction -increased
social organziations covering ever larger populations.(eg hunter gatherer
groups, villages
cities , city states , nation states ) . This occurred because it made us
more fit - face the cahllenges of the time.   The climate change issue is
amongst other things a recognition of the global impact of our collective
impacts and that no nation state can provide on their own a solution to the
challenges we face. Thus there will be over time an inevitable
globalization of our human systems. Looking back a previous organizations
with disdain rather than part of our evolutionary history makes no logical
sense but ignoring the need to change and that change will provide a better
future is equally misguided .

In my view human knowledge will provide technology to address the
challenges we face and we will reorganize ourselves over time to be able to
implement them effectively just as we have in the past reorgnized ourselves
to address the challenges we faced.
My view is that this evolutionary path is inevitable because it will make
us more fit but what is not inevitable , as is the casse in the rest of
nature , is how much destruction will occur before we change . That in my
opinion in the challenge to all of us and I truly hope we are up to it.

Finally to be clear whether that global organziation evolves into large
global  bureaucracies or that stage is a transient organiztion giving way
to a technology enabled cloud connected bottom up organizations is yet to
be determined.

On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 1:27 AM, Andrew Lockley 
wrote:

> Thanks for the support, but I don't fully agree with the reasoning. I've
> encountered this thinking a great deal in the environmental movement, and
> it's not motivated by publication incentives.
>
> There's a category of people, often found cosseted inside institutions of
> various kinds, for whom "more government" is the answer to absolutely
> everything. This approach is often mocked as "watermelon politics" - red
> through and through, with a thin layer of green on the outside.
>
> Unfortunately, such people find it disproportionately easy to progress in
> institutions of great intellectual influence: academia, state media, public
> services, and government. This is despite the fact that their life
> experiences and values run counter to the undeniable realities lived by the
> vast majority of the population, who typically view the state as
> inefficient, bordering on Kafkaesque (hence the author's popularity).
>
> A
>
> On 21 Jan 2018 01:13, "Peter Flynn"  wrote:
>
>> Andrew,
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you for saying this, and saying it very well. I think that the
>> abstract is just nonsense: claptrap, as you say. I put this in the academic
>> realm of “I need to publish”, and even better, “if I say stupid stuff I’ll
>> get lots of citations from the refutation”.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am reminded of the phrase that perfect is the enemy of the good.
>> Linking dealing with the risk of climate change to reversing capitalism
>> would doom any effective effort. Gunderson et al. can rest assured that any
>> real action will take place within the various economies as they exist and
>> evolve, slowly; thinking that climate change is the Trojan Horse that will
>> overturn existing choices about economies is both tedious and damaging
>> nonsense.
>>
>>
>>
>> We have a serious problem to deal with, and distractions like this reduce
>> rather than enhance the ability to deal with it. I think all will agree
>> that perfection would be an instantaneous decarbonization that didn’t ruin
>> economies. But perfect won’t happen; we search for the good, the practical.
>> My personal guess is that a mix of decarbonization and geoengineering is
>> the likely future scenario, given the difficulty of mounting the will to
>> decarbonize quickly, in both capitalist and planned economies. I look at
>> catalytic converters added to cars: society found the will to spend more
>> for an existing technology to deal with an emission, but only in some
>> regions of the world, and only when the problem was evident and severe.
>>
>>
>>
>> There is a broad range of thinking on the challenge of climate change.
>> Trying to end capitalism, or perhaps more accurately regulated market
>> economies, is beyond the improbability of rapid decarbonization.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks again for calling this out.
>>
>>
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 <(928)%20451-4455>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googleg
>> roups.com] *On Behalf Of *Andrew 

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

[Peter Eisenberger]

Andrew ,

I do  not understand your comment on mny levels
1 If climate risk is real then solving it costs less than is spent on
defense -  50 dollars per tonne for 40 gigatonnes is two trillion dollars
in 2075 by which time the global economy will have grown to well over 200
trillion so this is less tha 1% - I spend mote than that on earth quake
insurance
2 but also at $50 dollars per tonne the carbon content on CO2  is equal to
$23 per barrel oil. So like in solar CO2 will replace oil as our carbon
feedstock and thus stimulate economic growth but even more interesting is
that one can convert CO2 into various carbon intnesive solids like carbon
fiber (already bee demonstrated see Stuart Licht) and  calculations show if
we build our infrastructure out of carbon intensive materials we can remove
the anount of CO2 needed to coreect our overshoot created because of time
it took to convert to solar . Once one makes the correction staying at a
fixed CO2 atmospheric content is a piece of cake and the sustainable
renewable energy and carbon economy will be sustainable.
3 Finally it is the large scale that guarantees that one will reach low
cost - In fact estimates are that the low cost learning curve limit for DAC
is under $25 dollars per tonne .

Peter

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 11:48 PM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> It's all very well talking about cost per tonne, but it disguises scale.
> We need to remove 1-2tn tonnes (total emissions before fossil
> obsolescence). That's 50tn dollars - more if you remove the whole lot.
>
> I, personally, regard spending on that scale as politically undeliverable
> - and possibly economically undeliverable, too.
>
> A
>
> On 18 Jan 2018 02:25, "Peter Eisenberger" <peter.eisenber...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Doug
>>
>> I understand what you are saying and why you are saying it.
>> But here is my argument why "will" is approrpriarte and that we have
>> proved it.  This will expand on what Leon wrote which I agree with.
>>
>> As background I ran a solar energy group in the late 80's and at that
>> time I used the past history of solar and learning curve theory to predict
>> that it would be about 2014 when solar PV would be competitive with fossil
>> eletricity and that the learning curve limit based upon the materials used
>> would  be 1to 2 cts per kwhr. I could do that because the basic phenomnea
>> was very well understood so that the limits of performance could be
>> specified and most importantly there were no show stoppers -some problem
>> when discovered could not be solved. The latter is critical because that
>> means we know us humans working on the problem long enough will make it
>> work - we have done it literally thousand of times. It is amazing but true
>> that statistically if we expend enough effort for something that can work
>> we will make it work. Moores Law for  chip density is another example of
>> this phenomena. As to the rate of learning  it is true that one has faster
>> and solwer periods of progress than the average rate of learning but over
>> along enough time they seem to average out . This is clearly the case for
>> solar but one has to be careful because the rate is determined by effort
>> and not time-so the fast rate of cost reduction recently is probably a
>> result of the rapid rate in PV units made .
>>
>> So in the same sense as solar PV I assert that we have found a DAC
>> process that differs in clearly understandable ways from other approaches
>> that is on a learning curve that has a conservative cost  limit of $25 and
>> some  might argue $10. This is gotten by assuming mass production (this
>> technology is amenable to mass production ) so that your Nth plus 1 plant
>> cost is equal to the cost of materials driving the capital cost down and of
>> course one benefits because the cost of energy is decreasing so the
>> operating cost decreases as well. The latter is how you can get between $25
>> and $10 . Most importantly here as well we and others have done enough
>> research so we understand the process well enough to know there are no show
>> stoppers and the path to improvement is clear and doable . There is of
>> course lots of problems to still be solved.
>>
>> The reason I tell people is that all we have to do is decide to do DAC is
>> because like solar once we do we will drive the costs down. Here the we is
>> all of us. I hope I was careful in claiming DAC will be low cost and not
>> that I or my company will be the one to do it. Once we start doing DAC
>> other smart people may find better ways to implement the low cost path that
>> our efforts have defined is a low cost path for

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

[Peter Eisenberger]

Doug

I understand what you are saying and why you are saying it.
But here is my argument why "will" is approrpriarte and that we have proved
it.  This will expand on what Leon wrote which I agree with.

As background I ran a solar energy group in the late 80's and at that time
I used the past history of solar and learning curve theory to predict that
it would be about 2014 when solar PV would be competitive with fossil
eletricity and that the learning curve limit based upon the materials used
would  be 1to 2 cts per kwhr. I could do that because the basic phenomnea
was very well understood so that the limits of performance could be
specified and most importantly there were no show stoppers -some problem
when discovered could not be solved. The latter is critical because that
means we know us humans working on the problem long enough will make it
work - we have done it literally thousand of times. It is amazing but true
that statistically if we expend enough effort for something that can work
we will make it work. Moores Law for  chip density is another example of
this phenomena. As to the rate of learning  it is true that one has faster
and solwer periods of progress than the average rate of learning but over
along enough time they seem to average out . This is clearly the case for
solar but one has to be careful because the rate is determined by effort
and not time-so the fast rate of cost reduction recently is probably a
result of the rapid rate in PV units made .

So in the same sense as solar PV I assert that we have found a DAC process
that differs in clearly understandable ways from other approaches that is
on a learning curve that has a conservative cost  limit of $25 and some
might argue $10. This is gotten by assuming mass production (this
technology is amenable to mass production ) so that your Nth plus 1 plant
cost is equal to the cost of materials driving the capital cost down and of
course one benefits because the cost of energy is decreasing so the
operating cost decreases as well. The latter is how you can get between $25
and $10 . Most importantly here as well we and others have done enough
research so we understand the process well enough to know there are no show
stoppers and the path to improvement is clear and doable . There is of
course lots of problems to still be solved.

The reason I tell people is that all we have to do is decide to do DAC is
because like solar once we do we will drive the costs down. Here the we is
all of us. I hope I was careful in claiming DAC will be low cost and not
that I or my company will be the one to do it. Once we start doing DAC
other smart people may find better ways to implement the low cost path that
our efforts have defined is a low cost path for DAC. or find a still better
way.

Doug I want you to know that I do not make the statements I do lightly . In
fact I do worry that there is something we have failed to consider that
will prevent one from reaching the very low learning curve cost limit . But
I am 100% sure that under $50 per tonne will be achieved and that is why I
use that number rather than $25 or $10 dollars per tonne.

Peter

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 6:06 AM, Douglas MacMartin <macma...@cds.caltech.edu
> wrote:

> Peter – you should replace every use of the words “can” and “will” below
> with something like “have been projected to” and “may”.
>
>
>
> If you do that, I’ll agree with you.  As written, I disagree.  Neither you
> nor anyone else has proven that DAC **will* *have costs below $50/ton,
> and I don’t think it helps make risk-balanced decisions to suggest that we
> know with certainty that this will be possible.
>
>
>
> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@
> googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Peter Eisenberger
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 17, 2018 3:10 AM
> *To:* Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Leon Di Marco <len2...@gmail.com>; geoengineering <
> geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Re: Leaked policy draft of SR15 - what do you think?
>
>
>
> As I have written frequently our company Global Thermostat  has developed
> a DAC technology that can at scale have costs under $50 per tonne and which
> can be converted into carbon intensive products like carbon fiber ,
> plastics and cement at a profit whch will drive their costs down like solar
> and will replace oil as a feedstock.
>
> An example of this is New Light Plastics and many other startups are
> working on using CO2 as a feedsock . Another interesting technology is OPUS
> 12 .
>
> Like solar the market place will decide. At $50 dollars per tonne the
> carbon content is equivalent to $23 dollars a barrel of oil.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:44 PM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> Respectfully, the facts contradict the

Re: [geo] Unexpectedly large impact of forest management and grazing on global vegetation biomass.

[Peter Eisenberger]

Thank you all for your thoughtful and  constructive comments to what I
wrote. Most importantly they clearly indicated I needed to correct an
understandably reaction to what I wrote. I apologize for creating some
confusion. I of course do support all activities that enable us to live
more harmoniously with the rest of life -so energy conservation ,
efficiency , better land use practices , and curtailing of past practices
that we now understand are very destructive.

The cause of the confusion is because of my growing concern that all those
positive actions will not enable us to avoid the risk of a climate
catastrophe which will literally wipe out all those gains if it occurs. Those
actions have their origin in  the early environmental movement when we did
not appreciate the true global nature and  maginitude of the challenge we
face. We now know for sure that the atmospheric CO2 level will overshoot by
alot the level judged to raise the risk greatly of catasrophic climate
change. So  a CDR capability is NECESSARY to avoid/mnimize the catastrophic
climate change risk . At this time 99.9 % ( I clearly mean this
metaphorically ) of the human talent and resources is allocated to the nice
to have solutions and almost nothing is the need to have CDR( clarification
-I meant outside renewable energy efforts which is  also  NECESSARY) .
There is a nuance in the distinction between nice to have and need to have
that becomes very important in a true emergency. As shown by our efforts on
solar and many other technology efforts the learning by doing is a powerful
driver of cost reduction. Low cost solar would have been available much
sooner if more of us worked on it and more of our resources were devoted to
it because the rate of change in cost is proportional to effort NOt time.
The difference could easily have been decades, The same applies to CDR and
certainly to DAC which is a technology . So in allocating most of our
talent and resources to this nice to have we are delaying what is needed
and by decades that in this emergency case we do not have to waste. To make
things even more alarming from my perspective many of  the supporters of
the nice to have are advancing the amazing twisted logic moral hazard
argument that if we do CDR we will make things worse -thus preventing the
need to have from being pursued.
So in my view we are losing precious time for addressng what is needed to
avoid catastrophic climate change and history will not blame the deniers
but the supporters of the need to change for rearranging the chairs on the
planet earth as it crashes into the the icebergs of catastrophic climate
change and unfortunately in my opinion they will be right.

On Fri, Dec 29, 2017 at 11:38 PM, Smith, Professor Pete <
pete.sm...@abdn.ac.uk> wrote:

> Dear Dave & John,
>
>
>
> We could feed the world organically if we chose to do that – but it will
> require radical dietary change (less meat) and food system change - see
> attached recent paper from Nature Communications. These are all choices we
> will need to make as a society. I am not advocating organic agriculture as
> a global panacea – just saying that it could be done and that 100%
> industrialised agriculture is not inevitable – we can chose to do things
> differently to feed 9-10 billion in 2050 and 12 billion in 2100.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> Pete
>
>
>
> ---
>
>
> Prof. Pete Smith, FRS, FRSE, FNA, FRSB
> Professor of Soils & Global Change (http://www.abdn.ac.uk/ibes/
> people/profiles/pete.smith),
>
> Science Director of Scotland's ClimateXChange (www.climatexchange.org.uk),
> Editor, Global Change Biology
> 
>
> Editor, Global Change Biology
> *
> Bioenergy*
>
>
>
> Institute of Biological and Environmental Sciences,
> School of Biological Sciences,
> University of Aberdeen,
> 23 St Machar Drive, Room G45
> Aberdeen,
> AB24 3UU, Scotland, UK
>
> Tel: +44 (0)1224 272702 <+44%201224%20272702>
> Fax: +44 (0)1224 272703 <+44%201224%20272703>
> E-mail: pete.sm...@abdn.ac.uk
>
> Highly Cited Researcher: *http://hcr.stateofinnovation.com/
> *
>
> Researcher ID:* http://www.researcherid.com/rid/G-1041-2010
> *
>
> Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.co.uk/citations?user=7P9W6pYJ;
> hl=en
>
>
>
> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@
> googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Dave Stanley
> *Sent:* 29 December 2017 18:52
> *To:* jha...@berkeley.edu
> *Cc:* peter.eisenber...@gmail.com; andrew.lock...@gmail.com;
> geoengineering 
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Unexpectedly large impact of forest management and
> grazing on global vegetation biomass.
>
>
>
> Re: I think it is becoming clear that reducing the footprint of 9 million
> members of a dominant species is not a feasible task .  But there are still
> 

Re: [geo] Unexpectedly large impact of forest management and grazing on global vegetation biomass.

[Peter Eisenberger]

This further supports my contention that any solution to the excess carbon in 
the air
that Involves using a natural process to either remove it or store it will  be 
found to have 
consequences when practiced at the global scale that will make them ineffective 
at best 
A plausibility argument for this assertion is that humans have disturbed the 
planet which is a complex system in the physics sense and thus the human 
disturbance has feedback type impacts that cannot be addressed by natural 
system without the danger of putting us in anew earth human system that could 
be catastrophic for us and the rest of life 
What we can do is impose on the natural system human control that will provide 
feedbacks 
that  will prevent the destructive feedbacks from growing . This managing the 
planet approach has few supporters and is contrary to the historical roots of 
our concern about the environment which made us humans the bad guys and 
reducing our footprint the solution. 

I think it is becoming clear that reducing the footprint of 9 million members 
of a dominant species is not a feasible task .  But there are still major 
efforts to use natural solutions with 
Organic farming being the poster child - great to  make some people feel good 
but cannot feed 9 billion people which will require industrial scale 
agriculture 

For the carbon in the air problem this type thinking led me to conclude that we 
needed to take control of the carbon cycle industrially and industrially adjust 
how much we sequester in our human created  materials so to fix the co2 
concentration in the air with our human controlled feedback . A human 
controlled path is DAC for removal and in human materials such as concrete and 
carbon fiber for storage 
This can clearly stabilize the co2 concentration at a level of out choosing 
since both processes can  be shown to scale  . 
My point for this discussion is not to advocate for DAC but rather that what 
makes DAC different than SRM is fundamental and that SRM type solutions as well 
as their polar opposite so called natural solutions will in the end not address 
the problem and will be challenged to show that in buying time that they do not 
make things worse. Also for different reasons they are preventing us from 
reaching the inevitable conclusion that industrial controlled co2 removal and 
storage is the preferred path to address the threat of catastrophic climate 
change 
The longer we take for that view to be adopted the greater the risk that we 
will fail 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Dec 27, 2017, at 3:48 AM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
> 
> 
> https://news.mongabay.com/2017/12/fighting-climate-change-with-bioenergy-may-do-more-harm-than-good/amp/?__twitter_impression=true
> 
> Fighting climate change with bioenergy may do ‘more harm than good’
> 
> Morgan Erickson-Davis14 hours ago
> As nations try to stem emissions to keep the world from warming more than 2 
> degrees Celsius in line with their commitments towards the Paris Accord, 
> replacing fossil fuels with renewable alternatives is widely seen as a big 
> step in the right direction. A major source of energy oft-extolled as 
> renewable is biomass from trees, which are usually harvested from managed 
> forests either established on land that has already been deforested or 
> planted where forests didn’t naturally grow. But a new study finds land-use 
> like managing forests for biomass production may come at a much higher carbon 
> cost than previously thought.
> 
> The study, published recently in Nature, was conducted by an international 
> team of researchers who analyzed data how much biomass – organic matter – is 
> contained in areas of terrestrial vegetation around the world. They used 
> this, in turn, to calculate how much carbon this vegetation stores.
> 
> But they didn’t just assess current biomass and carbon stocks – they also 
> figured out how much carbon the world’s vegetation could be storing if it 
> wasn’t affected by human land-use.
> 
> Their results indicate terrestrial vegetation currently stores around 450 
> billion metric tons of carbon. But absent land-use, it could be storing more 
> than twice that – about 916 billion metric tons.
> 
> Of the 466 billion tons of “lost” carbon, the researchers found 53 to 58 
> percent can be attributed to the direct clearing of forests and other 
> land-cover changes. Deforestation has long been recognized as one of the 
> biggest emitters of greenhouse gases and reducing it is prominently addressed 
> in the Paris Accord, so the researchers weren’t surprised that deforestation 
> is having a big limiting impact on carbon sequestration.
> 
> But when it came to the remainder of the missing carbon, the study uncovered 
> some surprises. Its results showed land management that didn’t change cover 
> type – e.g., forests stayed forests, grasslands stayed grasslands – 
> contributed 42 to 47 percent towards the 466 billion-ton carbon deficit.
> 

Re: [geo] Carbon Emissions, Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, and Unintended Harms - Ethics & International Affairs : Ethics & International Affairs

[Peter Eisenberger]

points toward the continuing moral importance of prioritizing emission
reductions

another amazing example of contorted logic  but also how SRM is being used
here  but than is used with the poor logic to include CDR



On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 3:35 PM, Andrew Lockley 
wrote:

> https://www.ethicsandinternationalaffairs.org/2017/carbon-emissions-
> stratospheric-aerosol-injection-unintended-harms/
>
> Carbon Emissions, Stratospheric Aerosol Injection, and Unintended Harms
> 
> Christopher J. Preston
>  | 
> December
> 8, 2017
> [Facebook]
> 
>   [Twitter]
> 
>   [Email]
> 
> [image: Print Friendly, PDF & Email]
> 
>
> *Abstract: *In the rapidly expanding literature on the ethics of climate
> engineering, a lot has been made of the fact that stratospheric aerosol
> injection would for the first time create a world whose climate had been
> intentionally shaped by deliberate human decisions. Intention has always
> mattered in ethics. Due to the importance of intention in assigning
> culpability for harms, one might expect that the moral responsibility for
> any harms created during an attempt to reconstruct the global climate using
> stratospheric aerosols would be considerable. This article investigates
> such an expectation by making a comparison between the culpability for any
> unintended harms resulting from stratospheric aerosol injection and
> culpability for the unintended harms already taking place due to carbon
> emissions. To make this comparison, both types of unintended harms are
> viewed through the lens of the doctrine of double effect. The conclusion
> reached goes against what many might expect. The article closes by
> suggesting that a good way to read this surprising conclusion is that it
> points toward the continuing moral importance of prioritizing emission
> reductions.
>
> *Keywords:* climate engineering, stratospheric aerosol injection, carbon
> emissions, unintended harms, doctrine of double effect
>
> --
> 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.
>



-- 
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: This email message and all attachments contain
confidential and privileged information that are for the sole use of the
intended recipients, which if appropriate applies under the terms of the
non-disclosure agreement between the parties.

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

Re: [geo] Get Paid Watching The Grass Grow: Carbon Sequestration, Texas-Style

[Peter Eisenberger]

I may be mistaken but the revenue is not annual but one time but the effort
needs to go on for hundreds of years to keep the incremental storage of
carbon


On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 3:31 PM, Andrew Lockley 
wrote:

> Poster's note: This approach seems more politically and economically
> realistic that most CDR strategies. I'm not sure the science on grazing
> patterns is settled, however.https://www.forbes.com/sites/j
> effmcmahon/2017/12/01/get-paid-watching-the-grass-grow-texas
> -style-carbon-sequestration/#7d10da92b4a4
> Get Paid Watching The Grass Grow: Carbon Sequestration, Texas-Style
>
>-
>-
>-
>-
>-
>
> 
> Jeff McMahon  , CONTRIBUTOR 
> Opinions
> expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
> TWEET THIS
>
>- “Really what it boils down to, which is a very Texas way of
>thinking: making ecosystem services a monetizable property right," Medlock
>said. "I think it’s something that should be on the table and should be
>discussed."
>
> 
>
> Photo by Mark Thompson/Getty Images
>
> A planner working on flood control in Houston believes he has come upon a
> way—that conservatives will love—to remove a billion tons of carbon dioxide
> from the atmosphere.
>
> Jim Blackburn sees carbon in the soil as a private-property right that
> landowners should be compensated for, considering the service they are
> providing to the ecosystem by storing it there.
>
> "We think we can set up a system that every red state in the nation would
> accept in a heartbeat," said Blackburn, an environmental lawyer and planner
> widely quoted
> 
>  for
> his work on Houston's flooding. "Whether we can get it accepted in
> California, well, that’s a different question."
>
> Researchers have shown that ranchers can efficiently store atmospheric
> carbon in the soil by using a grazing technique that emulates the
> behavior of buffalo on the prairie.
>  By moving
> cattle through a series of paddocks that are given a longer recovery time
> than continuous grazing allows, ranchers can sequester several tons of
> carbon dioxide per acre per year, Blackburn said.
>
> The federal government has estimated
> 
>  that
> atmospheric carbon pollution has a social cost of about $40 per ton. That's
> the dollar amount of damage a ton of carbon dioxide emissions causes
> to agricultural productivity, human health, property from increased flood
> risk, and increased costs for heating and air conditioning.
>
> If ranchers were compensated at the level of the social cost of carbon, or
> close to it, Blackburn said, "the ecosystem services that are provided by
> nature might in fact generate a lot of income for these landowners."
>
> The average ranch in Texas is 523 acres in size, according
>  to Texas A
> University. Blackburn believes ranchers can count on $140 per acre per year
> from carbon sequestration, if he succeeds in developing an exchange to
> distribute the money. For the average ranch, that would mean an annual
> income of $73,220, just from letting the grass grow.
>
> "If you grow carbon in your soil, it’s a property right," Blackburn said.
> "You own the carbon you grow. And if you measure it and you prove that
> you’ve added it to the inventory, we believe that you can sell it."
>
> It's not a new idea, although it may be new to Texas. They've been doing 
> something
> similar in Canada
> .
>
> The economist Kenneth B. Medlock III, director of the James A. Baker III
> Institute's Center for Energy Studies, believes the idea has merit in the
> United States.
>
> “Really what it boils down to, which is a very Texas way of thinking:
> making ecosystem services a monetizable property right," Medlock said. "I
> think it’s something that should be on the table and should be discussed."
> 
>
> Blackburn struck on the idea 

Re: [geo] Scientists Look to Bali Volcano for Clues to Curb Climate Change - Scientific American

[Peter Eisenberger]

term thinking.
>  
> d
>  
> From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
> [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Peter Eisenberger
> Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2017 11:47 PM
> To: Douglas MacMartin <macma...@cds.caltech.edu>
> Cc: Michael MacCracken <mmacc...@comcast.net>; Michael Hayes 
> <voglerl...@gmail.com>; geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; 
> David Keith <david_ke...@harvard.edu>
> Subject: Re: [geo] Scientists Look to Bali Volcano for Clues to Curb Climate 
> Change - Scientific American
>  
> All I can say is that there are two responses to a real emergency - a 
> response that says try everything and one that prioritizes. In most 
> situations and all with long time responses prioritization is always chosen 
> as the more effective approach . We are in a real emergency it is our 
> responsibility to prioritize if we want to really address the threat 
> effectively . Yes I suggest that while DAC should not be the only thing to be 
> supported it is at this time the number 1 priority . I am willing to listen 
> to other opinions and change my mind as needed . I have also tried to add 
> credibility by saying I pledge not to take public funding if the 
> recommendation was honored. 
>  
> Doug , please understnd my call for prioritization is because of the 
> seriousness of the threat we face . We need to move beyond the research phase 
> and start the long effort required ASAP . I see a non prioritized agenda 
> resulting in marginal progress on many fronts and significant progress (scale 
> ) on none. The power of learning by doing means we got to start on our best 
> choices now.  
>  
> On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Douglas MacMartin <macma...@cds.caltech.edu> 
> wrote:
> Peter,
>  
> I’d just add to Mike’s point that the specific wording of yours that I 
> explicitly disagree with is the word “priority”.  To me, that suggests, well, 
> a prioritization… that is, we should focus on DAC to the exclusion of other 
> approaches.  If you think we should consider all of the available options, 
> and invest in all of them, then you shouldn’t use the word priority, nor say 
> things like “The BEST  path to address the threat of catastrophic climate 
> change involves DAC with permeant storage”
>  
> Personally, I think we need a portfolio of options, and we shouldn’t ignore 
> any of them (and if you said we could only prioritize one thing, I would 
> rather strongly vote for mitigation).  DAC and SRM are different tools in the 
> toolbox, and as Mike points out, the “best” solution quite possibly involves 
> both of them, along with aggressive mitigation, and maybe along with other 
> methods for CDR.  That is quite a different statement from stating that one 
> particular approach is the best, and that one particular approach should be 
> prioritized.
>  
> Two other comments:
>  
> Right now the sum total US federal research on SRM is, within a rounding 
> error, zero.  So no, it is not only DAC that is receiving no funding.  
> Funding right now for DAC I suspect outweighs funding for SRM if you include 
> philanthropic.
>  
> Also note that you attribute to me “So the only reason I am writing about 
> this is because I do not think we should delay investing in DAC till as you 
> say Once we have demonstrated DAC with permanent storage at Gt scale and 
> proven it to be low cost with no side effects”.  I don’t think it is possible 
> to demonstrate DAC at Gt scale without investing in it, so I don’t know how 
> you could read my email and conclude that I believe we should delay investing 
> in DAC.
>  
> doug
>  
>  
> From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
> [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Michael MacCracken
> Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2017 4:07 PM
> To: Peter Eisenberger <peter.eisenber...@gmail.com>
> Cc: Douglas MacMartin <macma...@cds.caltech.edu>; Michael Hayes 
> <voglerl...@gmail.com>; geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; 
> David Keith <david_ke...@harvard.edu>
> 
> Subject: Re: [geo] Scientists Look to Bali Volcano for Clues to Curb Climate 
> Change - Scientific American
>  
> Dear Peter--The IPCC FOD (first order draft) of the 1.5 C special report is 
> what is really concerning me.
> 
> First, they label their emissions pathways by the end point temperature that 
> they are aiming for a century or so in the future; thus a 1.5 C pathway is 
> aiming at 1.5 C, but there is wide recognition and apparent acceptance that 
> the temperature path will overshoot not just 1.5 or 2 C, but could well go a 
> good bit over 3 C before the forcings are brought back down enough (via 
> negative emissions, et

Re: [geo] Scientists Look to Bali Volcano for Clues to Curb Climate Change - Scientific American

[Peter Eisenberger]

All I can say is that there are two responses to a real emergency - a
response that says try everything and one that prioritizes. In most
situations and all with long time responses prioritization is always chosen
as the more effective approach . We are in a real emergency it is our
responsibility to prioritize if we want to really address the threat
effectively . Yes I suggest that while DAC should not be the only thing to
be supported it is at this time the number 1 priority . I am willing to
listen to other opinions and change my mind as needed . I have also tried
to add credibility by saying I pledge not to take public funding if the
recommendation was honored.

Doug , please understnd my call for prioritization is because of the
seriousness of the threat we face . We need to move beyond the research
phase and start the long effort required ASAP . I see a non prioritized
agenda resulting in marginal progress on many fronts and significant
progress (scale ) on none. The power of learning by doing means we got to
start on our best choices now.

On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 5:22 PM, Douglas MacMartin <macma...@cds.caltech.edu>
wrote:

> Peter,
>
>
>
> I’d just add to Mike’s point that the specific wording of yours that I
> explicitly disagree with is the word “priority”.  To me, that suggests,
> well, a prioritization… that is, we should focus on DAC to the exclusion of
> other approaches.  If you think we should consider all of the available
> options, and invest in all of them, then you shouldn’t use the word
> priority, nor say things like “The BEST  path to address the threat of
> catastrophic climate change involves DAC with permeant storage”
>
>
>
> Personally, I think we need a portfolio of options, and we shouldn’t
> ignore any of them (and if you said we could only prioritize one thing, I
> would rather strongly vote for mitigation).  DAC and SRM are different
> tools in the toolbox, and as Mike points out, the “best” solution quite
> possibly involves both of them, along with aggressive mitigation, and maybe
> along with other methods for CDR.  That is quite a different statement from
> stating that one particular approach is the best, and that one particular
> approach should be prioritized.
>
>
>
> Two other comments:
>
>
>
> Right now the sum total US federal research on SRM is, within a rounding
> error, zero.  So no, it is not only DAC that is receiving no funding.
> Funding right now for DAC I suspect outweighs funding for SRM if you
> include philanthropic.
>
>
>
> Also note that you attribute to me “So the only reason I am writing about
> this is because I do not think we should delay investing in DAC till as you
> say Once we have demonstrated DAC with permanent storage at Gt scale and
> proven it to be low cost with no side effects”.  I don’t think it is
> possible to demonstrate DAC at Gt scale without investing in it, so I don’t
> know how you could read my email and conclude that I believe we should
> delay investing in DAC.
>
>
>
> doug
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@
> googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Michael MacCracken
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 03, 2017 4:07 PM
> *To:* Peter Eisenberger <peter.eisenber...@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* Douglas MacMartin <macma...@cds.caltech.edu>; Michael Hayes <
> voglerl...@gmail.com>; geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>;
> David Keith <david_ke...@harvard.edu>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Scientists Look to Bali Volcano for Clues to Curb
> Climate Change - Scientific American
>
>
>
> Dear Peter--The IPCC FOD (first order draft) of the 1.5 C special report
> is what is really concerning me.
>
> First, they label their emissions pathways by the end point temperature
> that they are aiming for a century or so in the future; thus a 1.5 C
> pathway is aiming at 1.5 C, but there is wide recognition and apparent
> acceptance that the temperature path will overshoot not just 1.5 or 2 C,
> but could well go a good bit over 3 C before the forcings are brought back
> down enough (via negative emissions, etc.) to get back to 1.5 C. Well,
> right now, simulations by Climate Interactive etc. have the world exceeding
> 2 C by 2050 and headed up a good bit further. So, we'll be having all this
> talk about being on 1.5 pathways when in reality the impacts will be
> primarily determined by the peak temperature, say 3 or 3.5 C, and some,
> like biodiversity loss and acceleration of ice sheet loss (and perhaps
> ocean acidification effects) are not really going to be reversible. Well, I
> just don't see emissions as likely to be cut fast enough or DAC as being
> phased up fast enough to prevent this, and I think the temperature/climate
> ind

Re: [geo] Scientists Look to Bali Volcano for Clues to Curb Climate Change - Scientific American

[Peter Eisenberger]

Dear Mike ,
Something stange is going on here that perhaps you can help me understand .
I repeatedly state that I am for doing research on other things and SRM
explicitly . Yet somehow in asserting what i believe is a higher priority
for our common objective I am accused of argunig against supporting other
things. Maybe I have been out of a zero sum funding world but in any case I
reject such logic as a basis for shaping our scientific positions. I think
a let a 100 flowers bloom or everything goes approach shirks our
responsibility as scientists where we should discipline ourselves to use
our knowledge to prioritize things . I assert again I cannot support nor do
I think it is justified to support SRM before one supports DAC . One is a
backup and the other is a shot a a solution -the only sustainable
solution(eg with renewable energy etc I know at this time
The logic that a large investment in DAC will rob funds for other purposes
is just wrong. As the paper I sent you shows certainly alot of DAC ( I
argue all ) can use the CO2 to make money (not a cost a benefit) and store
it at the same time. So as I have written I am convinced that in this
century we will be harvesting our carbon from the sky (where it is excess)
rather than mining it from the ground. $50 per tonne CO2 in terms of carbon
content is about $40 per barrel. Yes I do assert that DAC that is used to
provide our liquid fuels, hydrocarbions and our building materials will not
be a burden on society but an asset. By the way if one is concerned about
wasting capital than join me in appposing electric vehicles and instead
suport renewable gasoline made for CO2 from the air and hydrogen from water
powereed by the sun. That will save trillions in new infrastructure that
could indeed be better spent on education or health or other infrastructure
.

Peter

On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Michael MacCracken <mmacc...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> Dear Peter--I don't really think you can say that your approach is without
> the risk of adverse impacts in that it will take much longer to pull down
> the temperature than will DAC. Yes, DAC gets you to the lower temperature
> over time, but in the interim a lot is going on. Now, yes, if a very great
> more were invested to implement DAC, one could have a nearer-term impact,
> but then one is taking money from society for other purposes, etc. It seems
> to me, the metric to be used for comparison might be the net reduction in
> impacts (I do agree SRM would not uniquely lead to less impacts everywhere
> and of every type) per unit of money of some amount invested.
>
> This is not in any way to be saying we should not be investing in DAC but
> I don't think your argument makes the case for not also doing research on
> SRM of various types (and SRM is getting very little research money as
> well). Given the seriousness and imminence of the predicament that we are
> in, in my opinion, a broad-based and aggressive research effort is needed
> that recognizes the advantages and shortcomings of each type of approach
> and ultimately aims for a program that draws on multiple approaches to deal
> with the rapidly worsening situation.
>
> Best, Mike MacCracken
>
>
> On 12/3/17 2:24 PM, Peter Eisenberger wrote:
>
> Dear Doug ,
>
> I am sorry for the misunderstanding : I am clearly for doing efforts on
> other approaches including SRM
>
> But the situation as it stands is that the only solution conceptually that
> can address the threat of climate change without the risk of adverse
> impacts is DAC with permanent storage. Yet it is the only approach to this
> date that has effectively zero public funding support and until very
> recently policy support. So my argument is that we all should support
> public funding of DAC efforts that can be published and shared that will
> test the premise that it can be done at low cost at a gigatonne scale. What
> I have further shared is that our commercial efforts involving experts in
> industrail gas technology  ( eg separating gases from air) have determined
> that $50 per tonne DAC is achievable and that we are having great
> commercial success -so much so that I have committed us not to seek public
> funding if it were approved.
>
> So the only reason I am writing about this is because I do not think we
> should delay investing in DAC till as you say
>
> Once we have demonstrated DAC with permanent storage at Gt scale and
> proven it to be low cost with no side effects,
>
> When I read that I think that every year we delay starting a serious
> effort on DAC is a year longer of risking catastrophic climate change -the
> overshoot will be more and the time will be greater. So I literally believe
> that I need to surpress my interests in the company where others delaying
> is better(less competition) and instead a

Re: [geo] Scientists Look to Bali Volcano for Clues to Curb Climate Change - Scientific American

[Peter Eisenberger]

Dear Doug ,

I am sorry for the misunderstanding : I am clearly for doing efforts on
other approaches including SRM

But the situation as it stands is that the only solution conceptually that
can address the threat of climate change without the risk of adverse
impacts is DAC with permanent storage. Yet it is the only approach to this
date that has effectively zero public funding support and until very
recently policy support. So my argument is that we all should support
public funding of DAC efforts that can be published and shared that will
test the premise that it can be done at low cost at a gigatonne scale. What
I have further shared is that our commercial efforts involving experts in
industrail gas technology  ( eg separating gases from air) have determined
that $50 per tonne DAC is achievable and that we are having great
commercial success -so much so that I have committed us not to seek public
funding if it were approved.

So the only reason I am writing about this is because I do not think we
should delay investing in DAC till as you say

Once we have demonstrated DAC with permanent storage at Gt scale and proven
it to be low cost with no side effects,

When I read that I think that every year we delay starting a serious effort
on DAC is a year longer of risking catastrophic climate change -the
overshoot will be more and the time will be greater. So I literally believe
that I need to surpress my interests in the company where others delaying
is better(less competition) and instead as a scientist try to get people to
understand that DAC will be low cost -all we have to do is do it .
Furthermore I argue that our patents that are public enable an indpendent
person like Ellen Stechl to understand why DAC can be low cost and why
others are mistaken in asserting otherwse .
Peter

On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 4:30 AM, Douglas MacMartin <macma...@cds.caltech.edu>
wrote:

> Peter,
>
>
>
> Once we have demonstrated DAC with permanent storage at Gt scale and
> proven it to be low cost with no side effects, then I would agree that we
> can stop researching other options.  Until then I think it is premature to
> declare that we have found the solution and can ignore every other option.
> I know you disagree with me, but I do not think that we know what the costs
> of a technology are going to be when we haven’t implemented it at even a
> tiny fraction of a meaningful scale.  I’m not convinced that it will be as
> cheap as you believe it to be, but furthermore, it is not possible for you
> to convince me without demonstrating both removal and storage at Gt scale;
> sorry, but I’ve been an engineer all my life and have seen my share of
> overconfident predictions (and probably safe to say zero accurate
> predictions at this stage of technology development), and I simply don’t
> believe that it is theoretically possible to accurately predict costs and
> issues to sufficient accuracy without actually doing something.
>
>
>
> Therefore I don’t understand why you insist on picking the right solution
> today and stopping all research on all other solutions.  I don’t view this
> as a competition.
>
>
>
> At any rate, if you have any concern about nonlinearities and tipping
> points, you should strongly support research into SRM, as that’s a pretty
> strong argument in favour of it.  We don’t know what would happen if we
> allowed the planet to keep warming, but we’re a lot less likely to pass
> major earth system tipping points if we keep the system “closer” to the
> current state.  That is, of course it is almost trivially true that a world
> that is say 1.5C (just to use the Paris number, not endorsing it) due only
> to CO2 is less risky than a world that would have been 3C due to CO2 but is
> brought back to 1.5C with SRM.  But that second scenario is quite likely to
> be less risky than allowing a 3C world.  Although we don’t actually know
> that today, not without further research.  So I’m not sure why you’re so
> vehemently opposed to any further research into SRM… which is how I
> interpret your comments.
>
>
>
> doug
>
>
>
> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@
> googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Peter Eisenberger
> *Sent:* Sunday, December 03, 2017 4:48 AM
> *To:* Michael Hayes <voglerl...@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>; David Keith <
> david_ke...@harvard.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Scientists Look to Bali Volcano for Clues to Curb
> Climate Change - Scientific American
>
>
>
> Vocanic euptions have impacts that are much more imporant than their
> transitory impact on climate. Their most significant role is in
> replenishing critcal elements to preserve the fertiliity of the soil.
>
> This in turn of course raises the issue of what the 

Re: [geo] Scientists Look to Bali Volcano for Clues to Curb Climate Change - Scientific American

[Peter Eisenberger]

Vocanic euptions have impacts that are much more imporant than their
transitory impact on climate. Their most significant role is in
replenishing critcal elements to preserve the fertiliity of the soil.
This in turn of course raises the issue of what the impact will be of human
efforts to do SRM on the rest of the ecosystems. This in turn is the cause
for concern about unexpected consequences and a concern that cannot be
addressed
by theory or experiment because complex systems evolution is not
predictable and we only have one planet. The important aspect of climate
change from a risk perspective  is not the first order linear responses but
rather whether one crosses some tipping point where the internal feedbacks
drive the system to a very different and usually catastrophic state. Such
tipping points are an inherent property of both the climate and the
ecosystems and ala the butterfly effect are inherently unpredictable.
Thus the real issue is not how SRM is like volcanoes but rather what are
the unintended feedback from SRM.  As a physicist ,and not a DAC advocate,
the fact is that DAC with permanent storage is the path to address the risk
of catastrophic climate change that has the lowest risk of triggering
adverse impacts compared to alternatives when  implemented at a global
scale for any signiifcant period of time.

It is clear to that all of us share the goal of wanting to prevent the
consequences of catastrophic climate change. So in the positive spirit of
tryimg to develop a consencus ageneda  I assert

The BEST  path to address the threat of catastrophic climate change
involves DAC with permeant storage -it is necessary .

 I respectfully ask for resposes to this assertion and that we  have a
constructive dialoque to see if if stands up to scrutiny.   I do not want
to be asserting an incorect postion but I do want our community
to develop a clear science based consencus for the best actions to take.

Again to be  clear I personally support R on SRM but in the context that
DAC with permanent storage is the clear priority. If my assertion is wrong
and in fact we have no low risk and cost path to addressing the risk than
of course SRM would have a high priority and I would want us  to be
asserting that .

On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 11:10 AM, Michael Hayes  wrote:

> Sentinel-SP5 feed:
>
> http://m.esa.int/spaceinimages/Images/2017/12/Sentinel-5P_captures_Bali_
> volcanic_eruption
>
> --
> 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.
>



-- 
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: This email message and all attachments contain
confidential and privileged information that are for the sole use of the
intended recipients, which if appropriate applies under the terms of the
non-disclosure agreement between the parties.

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

Re: [geo] Re: [CDR] The International Conference on Negative CO2 Emissions » 22-24 May 2018

[Peter Eisenberger]

d not specifically
> say in this interview that this was not true. But note that this interview
> this was tightly edited and omitted many things I often say about
> governance and about context including mitigation and carbon removal. For a
> longer unedited video that does mention carbon removal see:
> https://www.technologyreview.com/video/609398/the-growing-
> case-for-geoengineering/
>
>
> I have been clear consistently that solar geoengineering has substantial
> risks, that it is, at best, a partial supplement to emissions reductions.
>
> Here’s how I see the trade-off between emissions reductions, carbon
> removal, and solar geoengineering.
>
>
> Emissions reductions are necessary if we want a stable climate. If we try
> to continue emissions and offset them with increasing solar geoengineering
> the world will walk further and further away from the current climate with
> higher and higher risks. One could, in principle get a stable climate, by
> continuing emissions and offsetting them with carbon removal. But I fail to
> see why it would make economic or environmental sense to have massive
> carbon removal (with its attendant costs and environmental impacts) while
> we still have massive emissions. If there is truly a low impact way to do
> carbon removal that is significantly cheaper than emissions reductions,
> then I would change my view on this. (Yes, I know you believe you can do
> carbon removal at some low number like 30 or $50 a ton. I truly hope you’re
> correct. I simply haven’t seen the evidence yet.)
>
>
> While emissions are high I don’t believe there is a meaningful distinction
> between emissions mitigation and carbon removal. The climate can’t tell the
> difference between a ton not emitted in a ton emitted and recaptured. So,
> while emissions are high, I think we should only put significant effort
> into large-scale deployment of carbon removal if it is cheaper than other
> methods of reducing emissions, or if it has lower environmental impacts and
> roughly the same cost.
>
>
> Once emissions get down towards zero carbon removal provides a unique
> ability to reduce concentrations. Once emissions get to zero carbon removal
> can do something that can’t be done by emissions mitigation or solar
> geoengineering. That’s part of the reason I’m very proud to have worked on
> carbon removal from my early work on BECCS (early papers, first PhD of the
> topic) to my work at Carbon Engineering). I would therefore like to see
> serious effort to developing carbon removal even if it is not now cheaper
> or otherwise better than emissions reduction. And serious development will
> entail limited deployment. It makes sense to do this during the time
> emissions are high to buy the option for net negative emissions once
> emissions get towards zero.
>
>
> Finally, solar geoengineering may provide a way to substantially reduce
> climate risks during a carbon concentration peak. A peak defined by
> continued positive emissions on the front and by carbon removal on the far
> side.
>
>
> Finally, note that, contrary to your assertion, solar geoengineering does
> in fact provide some significant reduction in carbon concentrations
> <http://ure.com/articles/nclimate3376.epdf?author_access_token=LJ7xrnEo6oZoRNRYgu7btNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NZqUjovChb9EdabCEcR6GuvZkepQXaPwfxVdn3_EQ1onk9bPWOsX7ETCUW7OvjKbM7syCkanNFs4sG07XAXjcx>.
>
>
>
>
> Peter, I think were roughly on the same side.
>
> I think the work you’re doing is terrific.
>
>
>
> Yours,
> David
>
>
> N.B., I am not subscribed to this list so please email me or post on
> twitter if you want to continue the conversation.
>
>
>
> On Sunday, 19 November 2017 11:34:14 UTC-5, Peter Eisenberger wrote:
>>
>> David Keith was on TV and did what I have expressed concern about
>> generally about the advocacy for SRM
>> He accepted the framework that we will fail to address the carbon
>> emissions reduction targets , failed to mention the CDR
>> option he himself helped pioneer and then pushed off concerns expressed
>> about doing SRM by saying doing nothing
>> also has risks ( not even mentioning that acidification of the ocean will
>> continue for sure and the continuing buildup of co2 etc )  . But most
>> importantly he supported the choice as being between doing nothing or doing
>> SRM which as a previous comment pointed out will be embraced by those who
>> want to do nothing that doing this will enable us to avoid the adverse
>> impacts of climate change and thus is acceptable as a response to climate
>> change threat
>>
>> My general point has been and continues to be that if us scientists allow
>> our advocacy for a parti

[geo] Re: [CDR] The International Conference on Negative CO2 Emissions » 22-24 May 2018

[Peter Eisenberger]

David Keith was on TV and did what I have expressed concern about generally 
about the advocacy for SRM
He accepted the framework that we will fail to address the carbon emissions 
reduction targets , failed to mention the CDR 
option he himself helped pioneer and then pushed off concerns expressed about 
doing SRM by saying doing nothing 
also has risks ( not even mentioning that acidification of the ocean will 
continue for sure and the continuing buildup of co2 etc )  . But most 
importantly he supported the choice as being between doing nothing or doing SRM 
which as a previous comment pointed out will be embraced by those who want to 
do nothing that doing this will enable us to avoid the adverse impacts of 
climate change and thus is acceptable as a response to climate change threat 

My general point has been and continues to be that if us scientists allow our 
advocacy for a particular approach to determine what we say and not discipline 
ourselves with
a overall coherent approach we will become (are) part of the problem and not 
part of the solution 

(Now I know that media can distort messages but I also know that it is possible 
upfront to tell them the distortions one will not accept ) 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Nov 19, 2017, at 9:39 AM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:
> 
> Poster's note: looming deadline 
> 
> http://negativeco2emissions2018.com/
> 
> 
> General Information
> 
> The objective of the Paris Agreement is to limit global warming to well below 
> 2ºC, and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5ºC. The 
> IPCC Fifth Assessment Report quantified the global “carbon budget”, that is 
> the amount of carbon dioxide that we can emit while still having a likely 
> chance of limiting global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius above 
> pre-industrial levels.
> 
> The exact size of the carbon budget cannot be specified with high confidence 
> since it depends on many uncertain factors, including emission pathways for 
> non-CO2 climate forcers. This said, the remaining budgets for the 1.5ºC and 
> 2ºC targets have been estimated at about 200 and 800 Gt of CO2 . With 
> unchanged present emissions at about 40 Gt CO2/year these budgets would be 
> exhausted in as few as 5 and 20 years, respectively. Consequently, most of 
> the IPCC emission scenarios able to meet the global two-degree target require 
> overshooting the carbon budget at first and then remove the excess carbon 
> with large negative emissions, typically on the order of 400‑800 Gt CO2 up to 
> 2100.
> 
> At the same time as negative emissions appear to be indispensable to meet 
> climate targets decided, the large future negative emissions assumed in 
> climate models have been questioned and warnings have been raised about 
> relying on very large and uncertain negative emissions in the future. With 
> the future climate at stake, a deeper and fuller understanding of the various 
> aspects of negative emissions is needed.
> 
> The purpose of the conference is to bring together a wide range of 
> scientists, experts and stakeholders, in order to engage in various aspects 
> of research relating to negative CO2emissions. This will include various 
> negative emission technologies, climate modelling, climate policies and 
> incentives.
> 
>  
> 
> Paper submission and registration
> 
> Submission of documents to:
> negative...@chalmers.se
> 
> Abstract (one page):
> December 1,  2017
> 
> Please use the template provided here.
> 
> Notification of Acceptance:
> January 15,  2018
> 
> Full Paper:
> April 1,  2018
> 
> Early bird registration:
> before February 1, 2018
> 
> Online registration closes:
> May 10,  2018
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to carbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/CarbonDioxideRemoval.
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAJ3C-05gA7Nqi0PNnMmTQ0JZyNZ6_EY6rMo8uCGYgq%3DHsrjT6Q%40mail.gmail.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

Re: [geo] Climate science foe Lamar Smith - geoengineering is ‘worth exploring.’

[Peter Eisenberger]

Hi Mike ,

The key issue is your sentence  "While CDR can get started now, scaling up
seems likely to take a bit of time, though this depends mainly on level of
commitment." .
A serious Manhatten Project Level Project or Going to the moon effort would
make an assessment of the time versus commitment level for the only known
solution at this time  that can scale  -DAC where the carbon is either
stored in a material (carbon fiber or cement and sequestered or sequestered
directly
The number of units needed are comparable and less  than many things we
already mass produce by sigificant ratios - a shipping container sized unit
of GT technology captures 2000 tpy and is amenable to mass production .
:For 40 giga tonnes pyr capacity one would need 20 million units -there are
currently  17 million shipping containers used in the world . Today GT has
made two such units in a year say which is conservative estimate for
installed capacity  for the industry as a whole .To make the 20 million
one would need would take 22 doublings of capacity. If one had a
conservative  2 yr doubling time this would take  44 years and if it was a
global emergency so one had a high doubling time of 1 year it would take us
only 22 years to install 40 gigatonnes per year capacity with us making  4
million units per year at the end - we currently make 60 million new cars
per year . The capital cost to make a DAC 2000 tpy unit is about $500,000
which in the end would cost 2 trillion dollars or close to 1 % of GGDP at
that time and like solar it would create jobs.  My only point is that these
are not unreasonable numbers and most importantly no one has tried to do a
serious assessment , yet many make statements as if it is obvious that the
needed capacity cannot be reached in a timely fashion . But even more
significant is that we seem content with a research effort rather than an
implementation effort yet we claim we are in an emergency .
As I am prone to say - the only barrier to CDR to remove the needed
capacity (we know how to do it and that it is affordable) is to decide to
do it.

Peter


On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Michael MacCracken <mmacc...@comcast.net>
wrote:

> Hi Peter--You might be interested that at the hearing Rep. Veasey (ranking
> Democratic member on one of the subcommittees at the hearing--see
> https://veasey.house.gov) indicated that he would soon be putting forward
> a bill pursuing CDR research/efforts. He has a Subcommittee on Energy
> minority staffer, Joe Flarida, working on this issue who sounds both quite
> well-informed and also interested in getting input (
> joe.flar...@mail.house.gov). While there was discussion about might be
> done on SRM, I did not get the impression that a bill on that was as far
> along.
>
> On SRM & CDR issue, both are certainly needed. While CDR can get started
> now, scaling up seems likely to take a bit of time, though this depends
> mainly on level of commitment. SRM is indeed not a long-term approach, but
> it can be an approach that I think could be applied early in low deployment
> levels while mitigation and CDR are building up and getting emissions
> toward zero. I think this notion of waiting decades to get started makes
> little sense, because of the climate change and impacts that will occur in
> the interim, the shock that sudden and significant SRM deployment would
> induce, and that by that time it would be nice to have mitigation and CDR
> phased up a good bit (so CO2 emissions down, or at least no longer rising).
> Ultimately, we of course prefer having CDR be the dominant approach--for me
> the question is having a comprehensive effort that recognizes what needs to
> get done and what the capabilities are and deployments can be over time.
>
> Mike
>
> On 11/11/17 2:24 PM, Peter Eisenberger wrote:
>
> Hi Doug,
> I wish your statement was factually true but I can provide if you want
> many examples of people adovcating SRM  using the status of CDR to justify
> its need . Furthermore with all respect
> even your statement that CDR is in the same state -eg need for research as
> CDR is just factually incorrect . CDR is ready to be implemented , it does
> not carry the risk of unintended consequences , and as opposed to SRM it
> can
> address the climate challenge whereas the best SRM can do is provide more
> time to address it. This is why I wrote that I too support research on SRM
> but do so making clear that CDR is both a higher priority and more advanced
> by far than SRM
> If we were as we should be all on the same team focussed on addressing the
> threat we all agree exists than all who support research on SRM would also
> make clear that it is a lower priority than CDR .
> Furthermore as i wrote the failure to do that will result in a diffusion
> of effort so that we will make incremental progress on many f

Re: [geo] Climate science foe Lamar Smith - geoengineering is ‘worth exploring.’

[Peter Eisenberger]

Hi Doug,
I wish your statement was factually true but I can provide if you want many
examples of people adovcating SRM  using the status of CDR to justify its
need . Furthermore with all respect
even your statement that CDR is in the same state -eg need for research as
CDR is just factually incorrect . CDR is ready to be implemented , it does
not carry the risk of unintended consequences , and as opposed to SRM it
can
address the climate challenge whereas the best SRM can do is provide more
time to address it. This is why I wrote that I too support research on SRM
but do so making clear that CDR is both a higher priority and more advanced
by far than SRM
If we were as we should be all on the same team focussed on addressing the
threat we all agree exists than all who support research on SRM would also
make clear that it is a lower priority than CDR .
Furthermore as i wrote the failure to do that will result in a diffusion of
effort so that we will make incremental progress on many fronts without a
commtted response on any single effort thus unwittingly
delaying the critical large scale effort needed while we do research and
thus losing precious time we can ill afford to do . Unfortunately this is
not an academic issue and in the future experts will look at what we have
done and what was really known at the time and come to their own
conclusion. I hope we do not have to wait for that judgment and somehow
develop the internal capability to develop a consensus on a prioritized
plan to address the threat we face. At this time we need to go beyond
letting a thousand flowers bloom which in itself is paradoxical with the
argument that we have no time to waste .

I of course am willing to be shown that my logic is flawed and engage in
respecful dialogue with you or anyone that would argue against 1 that CDR
is higher priority than SRM , and 2 we need to have an internal effort to
develop a prioritized program for addressing the threat we face.
Peter

On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 10:02 AM, Douglas MacMartin <
macma...@cds.caltech.edu> wrote:

> Peter - I think that the risks of future climate change are sufficiently
> concerning that it would be premature to stop all research on some options
> on the assumption that other options are 100% guaranteed to suffice.   I
> think that pretty much everyone who thinks we need to research SRM also
> thinks we need to research CDR quite aggressively. So when you try to set
> things up as an “us vs them” framing, I don’t think you are doing justice
> to anyone’s perspective that I know (and I think I can safely say that I
> know pretty much everyone who works on SRM).  Relax; we’re all on the same
> team, and this isn’t a competition.
>
>
>
> Doug
>
>
>
> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@
> googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Peter Eisenberger
> *Sent:* Saturday, November 11, 2017 12:46 PM
> *To:* Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net>
> *Cc:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Climate science foe Lamar Smith - geoengineering is
> ‘worth exploring.’
>
>
>
> The sophisticated opposition to climate change initiated by George Bush
> Senior is to appease by supporting imcreased knowledge
>
> and thus avoid the need to act. This is just the most awkward and least
> nunanced of this pattern -or may I say another example of how far from
> knowledge based  our political dialoque has become .
>
>
>
> I  have stated my view that those who make the case for SRM by diminishing
> the status and potential for CDR to address the challenge of climate change
> are unwittingly
>
> playing into the hands of those opposed to action.  A coordinated
> community focussed on the threat and not their individual idea would insist
> that CDR be funded and aggressively pursued
>
> before pursuing SRM - or at least would begin every interaction with the
> statement that CDR is a much higher priority.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > http://grist.org/briefly/climate-science-foe-lamar-
> smith-says-geoengineering-is-worth-exploring/
> >
> >
> “Despite Smith’s endorsement of geoengineering, his opening statement made
> it clear that he’s still unwilling to talk about the reasons why the
> technology is being researched in the first place: “The purpose of this
> hearing is to discuss the viability of geoengineering … The hearing is not
> a platform to further the debate about climate change.”
>
> GR Just in case the climate change hoax is a hoax?
>
> --
> 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...@google

Re: [geo] Climate science foe Lamar Smith - geoengineering is ‘worth exploring.’

[Peter Eisenberger]

The sophisticated opposition to climate change initiated by George Bush
Senior is to appease by supporting imcreased knowledge
and thus avoid the need to act. This is just the most awkward and least
nunanced of this pattern -or may I say another example of how far from
knowledge based  our political dialoque has become .

I  have stated my view that those who make the case for SRM by diminishing
the status and potential for CDR to address the challenge of climate change
are unwittingly
playing into the hands of those opposed to action.  A coordinated community
focussed on the threat and not their individual idea would insist that CDR
be funded and aggressively pursued
before pursuing SRM - or at least would begin every interaction with the
statement that CDR is a much higher priority.

On Sat, Nov 11, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Greg Rau  wrote:

>
> >
> > http://grist.org/briefly/climate-science-foe-lamar-
> smith-says-geoengineering-is-worth-exploring/
> >
> >
> “Despite Smith’s endorsement of geoengineering, his opening statement made
> it clear that he’s still unwilling to talk about the reasons why the
> technology is being researched in the first place: “The purpose of this
> hearing is to discuss the viability of geoengineering … The hearing is not
> a platform to further the debate about climate change.”
>
> GR Just in case the climate change hoax is a hoax?
>
> --
> 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.
>



-- 
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: This email message and all attachments contain
confidential and privileged information that are for the sole use of the
intended recipients, which if appropriate applies under the terms of the
non-disclosure agreement between the parties.

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

Re: [geo] Re: On when it might make sense for intervention to begin

[Peter Eisenberger]

I believe the winner take all perspective is highly flawed and is a major
contributor why those of us  who share the concern for the climate risk
are not being effective in making our case. The winner take all lanquage is
appropriate for academic and commercial efforts but not for a Manhatten
Project Perspective where finding the approach to focus ones efforts on is
the primary challenge  and vigorous internal debate is the process. The
opportunity cost
of addrsssing SRM that cannot solve the problem and could make it worse
before we as a community support CDR which can solve the problem and has
minimal risk
is very large and made larger when so called experts argue in support of
SRM that one cannot depend upon or worse it is unlikely CDR can work in
time .
The  self fulling and self serving aspect of that is clear . And by the way
those who oppose taking the climate threat seriously will vigorously
support doing more research rather than  having a manhatten like project
where we all cooperate to address the treat we face.

Someone or some organization that supports the concern should provide a
process to have that vigorous internal debate with the pledge that one will
support the consencus approach that emerges . We can n o longer afford to
fagment our efforts by viewng this as an area of competition for support
rather than an emergency we need to come together on and confront as best
we can .

On Mon, Nov 6, 2017 at 10:51 AM, Michael Hayes  wrote:

> Mike,
>
> Well said and reasonable. Yet we seem to be drawn to a winner takes all
> type of strategy. If stratospheric injection presents unknowns, as all
> large scale actions will, and time is of the essence, why not field as many
> a plausible to filter out, and or adjust, as many as possible.
>
> There was once concern that one method would somehow contaminate another.
> Frankly I don't see that happening. Will SAI trouble MCB? Will AWL sink
> Biochar or BlueBiochar. How would SAI, MCB, or even OIF negate Olivine?
>
> Lets approach this as it is, a critical deployment phase which must reach
> for the best basket of tech coming on line and do so as soon as plausible.
> Table top neatness in experimentation eats far too much time and, fankly,
> is not needed.
>
> As a side note on SAI, the same equipment can be used to test out wetted C
> as an air dehydrator/electrical bridge to the GEC (GEC+) and the Hydroxyl
> Cryogenesis Geotherapy (HCG) approach.
>
> All of the methods need to be tested in the most informative, and thus
> challenging, set of conditions.
>
> I propose an Arctic high altitude field campaign involving SAI, HCG, and
> GEC+ be immediately ramped up for and deployed this Arctic Winter.
>
> The balloon station and tether components are all off the shelf. I propose
> a $3M budget. The law HR 353 peovides the budget.
>
> The aviation tech development during this Arctic build and deploy exercise
> will be valuable to the weather forecasting field for many decades. $3M is
> cheap for this amount of immediate science as well as new tool development.
>
> https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/353
>
>
> Michael Hayes
>
> On Nov 5, 2017 7:45 PM, "Michael MacCracken"  wrote:
>
>> Hi Doug--In response to your Nov 4 post below, I am all for learning, but
>> the problem with waiting and waiting is that the Earth will keep warming
>> and warming and impacts will keep growing and growing--including especially
>> ones that are or near irreversible, such as to biodiversity and commitment
>> to sea level rise.
>>
>> If the goal were, during this 20-year learning time, only to reduce or
>> offset year-by-year warming as might be done, based on our understanding of
>> volcanic effects, using quite small annual increments to the stratospheric
>> sulfur loading, and basically iterating as we go on something like 5-year
>> running averages, we would very likely be in a much more favorable
>> situation to evaluate how to proceed, both having better model analyses and
>> having some experience to work with. If we find the 20-year accumulation is
>> worse than ongoing global warming with GHGs or that mitigation is working
>> particularly well, the stratospheric injection level could be gradually
>> reduced instead of continuing with ongoing augmentation. While there would
>> of course be uncertainties, it is not really clear that they would be more
>> serious than the increasing changes and impacts that are occurring. It just
>> seems to me that to do nothing while continuing with research just lets the
>> situation get worse and then the cure having to be so much stronger than
>> deployment itself could be problematic.
>>
>> If, as Santer et al suggest, early 21st century rate of warming was
>> slowed by the cooling influences of small volcanic eruptions that injected
>> amounts that were barely noticeable even with advanced instruments and
>> really not at all noticeable by the general public, I'd 

Re: [geo] nuclear powered DAC

[Peter Eisenberger]

Cogenerating DAC and nuclear power if nuclear power produces low cost
electricity where the low temperature heat such facilities struggle to get
rid of
is used to run DAC makes alot of sense. Not sure that their are not lower
cost ways to generate low temperature heat.
By the way something not mentioned much is nuclear fusion. Once nuclear
fusion (mimicking solar reactions of the sun on the earth )  is proven
commercially
removing enfvironmental and other issues that plaqued fission reactions
alot of the issues of the 24x7 dispatchable renewable energy grid go away
by using some mixture of nuclear power and solar/wind .
I beleive in the long term fusion will be a major source of our energy.


On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 5:34 AM, David Sevier <
david.sev...@carbon-cycle.co.uk> wrote:

> In light of the thermal energy burden, I am wondering if you could combine
> a small nuclear pile such as a small modular swimming pool reactor (once
> described as the only nuclear power plant design that anyone ever made
> profit from) as a heat source without generating electricity with DAC. A
> number of DAC processes need heat either at or below 1000C. A small
> nuclear reactor should be able to supply this. If the requirement to raise
> steam and generate electricity are removed, the cost of the plant and the
> cost per KWH of heat should be significantly lower. Such an operation would
> not make sense in the early years of DAC but later when scale up becomes
> much larger and the world gets serious about DAC, then this could make
> sense. Look forward to comments and discussion. Swimming pool reactors had
> a good safety record (as far as I am aware), were not that expensive to
> build and were not terrible to decommission.
>
>
>
>
>
> David Sevier
>
> Carbon Cycle Limited
>
> 248 Sutton Common Road
> 
>
> Sutton, Surrey SM3 9PW
> 
>
> England
> 
>
> Tel 44 (0)208 288 0128
>
> Fax 44 (0)208-288 0129
>
>
>
> This email is private and confidential
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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.
>



-- 
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: This email message and all attachments contain
confidential and privileged information that are for the sole use of the
intended recipients, which if appropriate applies under the terms of the
non-disclosure agreement between the parties.

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

Re: [geo] Swanson's law

[Peter Eisenberger]

I agree with this 100%

On Sun, Sep 17, 2017 at 7:14 AM, Michael MacCracken 
wrote:

> A problem at present is that present high-voltage/alternating current
> distribution lines mean that low-cost transmission of electricity is
> limited to a few hundred miles, so one would have to disperse DAC. If
> instead there were large-scale high-voltage/direct current distribution
> lines (see MacDonald et al., Nature, January 2016), then there could be
> long distance, low-cost transmission over large distances and one would
> have a much better likelihood of having access to any stranded energy (from
> wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear, etc.), all while having DAC located where
> it would be optimally able to store the captured carbon. Just another
> reason, among many, for having large-scale HV/DC networks across the
> world's continents.
>
> Mike MacCracken
>
> On 9/17/17 10:50 AM, Hawkins, Dave wrote:
>
> Using stranded renewable energy for DAC is an interesting idea.  Question
> is what energy resource will be used during periods when there is no
> surplus RE? If DAC does not run 24/7 its costs go up. If DAC uses RE to run
> 24/7, that requires a larger RE system with associated stranding. If DAC
> uses something other than RE, what is it? Ideally, we would have an
> economically dispatchable zero-carbon resource.
> This is not an argument against DAC, just an observation on system
> complexity.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Sep 17, 2017, at 3:58 AM, Andrew Lockley 
> wrote:
>
> Does anyone have a breakdown of projected input costs for Direct Air
> Capture? I'm interested in quantifying the energy component.
>
> Swanson's law predicts reliable falls in the cost of solar. Without
> storage, much peak-time solar could be wasted, unless it's used for
> time-insensitive applications like DAC or desalination.
>
> (I understand Keith's process needs electricity, but Lackner's instead
> needs heat.)
>
> My hypothesis is that DAC could become vastly cheaper, if energy costs
> trended down as expected due to Swanson's law, and cheaper still if it
> became a way to use this stranded energy.
>
> I'd welcome thoughts, data, projections and comments.
>
> Thanks
>
> Andrew Lockley
>
> --
> 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.
>
>
> --
> 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.
>



-- 
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: This email message and all attachments contain
confidential and privileged information that are for the sole use of the
intended recipients, which if appropriate applies under the terms of the
non-disclosure agreement between the parties.

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

Re: [geo] The influence of learning about (CDR) on support for mitigation policies

[Peter Eisenberger]

gt; Buying down the costs of CCS is a fool’s errand only if the nations of the
> world actually are firmly committed to a dramatic reduction in the rate of
> arrival of climate change, rather than only saying that they are. I
> advocate mixing worst-case thinking into an optimist’s brew. My view hasn’t
> changed that avoiding five degrees is the highest priority task, and
> getting to two rather than three is next. The progress over the past decade
> with wind and solar is astonishing, and if similar progress can be achieved
> with storage and system innovation (including demand management), coal may
> really be over. We need to pay attention to choices made by India and its
> neighbors, as well as by Africa, over at least the next decade and put
> priority on R and policy that will tip the scales. Moreover, If storage
> and system innovation arrive slowly, wind and solar will penetrate more
> quickly in concert with natural gas, which will continue to assure
> dispatchability as it does now, and then the marriage of CCS with natural
> gas will become important.
>
>
>
> In short, it is dangerous to pretend that it’s already OK to devote our
> entire attention to two degrees.
>
>
>
> The education our energy analysis community has received regarding CCS
> over the past decade extends to DAC as well. The storage part was initially
> essentially too cheap to meter. It is now regarded as formidable. If there
> is an end run, for example based on CO2 reuse as fiber, then that makes CCS
> for coal less unattractive as well. (Fiber will come from coal before it
> comes from air, won’t it?) In short, I recommend caution before joining
> advocacy of DAC and denigration of CCS. They are synergistic campaigns,
> both facing steep uphill climbs and to a considerable extent for the same
> reasons.
>
>
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@
> googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Klaus Lackner
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 23, 2017 8:14 PM
> *To:* peter.eisenber...@gmail.com; Greg Rau
> *Cc:* Geoengineering; vcar...@umich.edu
>
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] The influence of learning about (CDR) on support for
> mitigation policies
>
>
>
> Let me phrase the critical part of Peter’s argument slightly differently.
>
>
> You should do things with future, because learning here matters.  If you
> build solar energy, it will get cheaper and cheaper over time.  The same is
> true for DAC.   It is even true for retrofitting old cold plants, but then
> you know you run out of old coal plants and all the learning was for
> naught.   If you had picked another clean energy source with long term
> potential that would be fine, because it would have gotten cheaper, and you
> can’t know to begin with which of the different options will win.  But you
> picked something that you know can’t compete in the long run and is going
> to be phased out.  You learned a dying art.   If the owners of coal plants
> find it competitive to fix the plant, let them do it. But there is no good
> reason to spend public money on that support.
>
>
>
> Klaus
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *<geoengineering@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Peter Eisenberger <
> peter.eisenber...@gmail.com>
> *Reply-To: *Peter Eisenberger <peter.eisenber...@gmail.com>
> *Date: *Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 15:56
> *To: *Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net>
> *Cc: *Geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>, "vcar...@umich.edu"
> <vcar...@umich.edu>
> *Subject: *Re: [geo] The influence of learning about (CDR) on support for
> mitigation policies
>
>
>
>  Hi Greg ,
>
> Just for a moment of truth- free of moral hazards and climate change
> politics
>
> 1 Emissions reductions through capturing and storing CO2 cannot solve  the
> climate problem alone (and cost too much )
>
> 2 CDR can solve the problem alone -it is just more difficult without
> emissions reductions
>
> 3 While it is true that in the short term an emission reduction  from a
> plant already operating is equivalent to a CDR reduction of the same size
> one can most effectively reduce  emissions by switching to renewables
>
> 4 Now the tricky point is that any technology has a practical  limit of
> how fast it can be implemented -so lets use a doubling of capacity every
> two years - we know that experience curves result in cost reductions with
> installed capacity
>
> 5 So if one wanted to achieve the paris targets as fast as possible one
> would invest in renewables and in CDR (DAC) and not spend a penny on
> emissions reductions which in reducing the rate (the opprotunity cost of
> emissions reductions)on would be slowing 

Re: [geo] The influence of learning about (CDR) on support for mitigation policies

[Peter Eisenberger]

 Hi Greg ,
Just for a moment of truth- free of moral hazards and climate change
politics
1 Emissions reductions through capturing and storing CO2 cannot solve  the
climate problem alone (and cost too much )
2 CDR can solve the problem alone -it is just more difficult without
emissions reductions
3 While it is true that in the short term an emission reduction  from a
plant already operating is equivalent to a CDR reduction of the same size
one can most effectively reduce  emissions by switching to renewables
4 Now the tricky point is that any technology has a practical  limit of how
fast it can be implemented -so lets use a doubling of capacity every two
years - we know that experience curves result in cost reductions with
installed capacity
5 So if one wanted to achieve the paris targets as fast as possible one
would invest in renewables and in CDR (DAC) and not spend a penny on
emissions reductions which in reducing the rate (the opprotunity cost of
emissions reductions)on would be slowing down the other two deployments
increasing the time it would take for both renewables and CDR to reach the
scale needed - because the last doublings ( when all the factories making
CDR and renewable will quickly make up for the increased emmissions from
existing plants -alternatively if one was to focus first on emissions
reductions and then on the other two that would be the longest time to
reach the capacities needed.

This could easily be modeled but the key is the positive feedback created
by building plants which results in enhanced rate ( new installations per
year because of lower costs and earlier  establishment  of mass production
capability  )   make the opportunity cost of investing in emmissions
reductions that will eventually end so large they are not worth doing . In
simpler terms one does not ususally invest in solutions that cannot solve
the problem if one has available approaches that do .

I believe this logic is solid . The reason is has not been widely if at all
accepted is because clean coal got started in an era where we mistakenly(
Socolow and Pacala)  thought that they together with renewables and other
things (eg conservation , efficiency  etc ) could solve te climate problem
. Lots of vested interests exist(DOE in particular) that do not want to
 admit that all their effort was in a dry hole so to speak.

So my position is if we are serious about the climate threat we should all
focus on renewable energy and CDR and I believe of course (which I want
others to evaluate) that DAC followed by use of the carbon that stores it
is the CDR technology  that can scale and offers a low cost solution
because the co2 makes money . The other approach I would support
investigating is enhancd weathering and of course fusion .

On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 11:14 AM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> Thanks, Peter.  Just to amplify, the IPCC states that to stay below 2degC
> warming and esp below 1.5degC warming, both emissions reduction and CDR are
> required, not either/or.  So how about the concept that emissions reduction
> presents a "moral hazard" to (required) CDR development?
>
> In any case, if even thinking about CDR (let alone doing it) is perceived
> by humans as a threat to emissions reduction (Campbell-Arvai et al., 2017),
> it's game over.  We have to do both.  I seriously doubt that humans are
> truly incapable of doing 2 things at once, but if they are we're toast
> (IPCC).
> Greg
>
>
> --
> *From:* Peter Eisenberger <peter.eisenber...@gmail.com>
> *To:* Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 22, 2017 1:40 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] The influence of learning about (CDR) on support for
> mitigation policies
>
> This line of reasoning is logically flawed and is one of the best examples
> of how the role of CDR is misunderstood and distorted by others who have an
> anti technology
> orientation that pervaded the original environmental movement.
>
> It is logically flawed because it is normal for people to react to news
> that a new solution exists, CDR ,to a problem they thought they could solve
> by renewable energy, emissions reductions and conservation .  The 2014 IPCC
> report confirmed what many knew that those processes are not adequate for
> avoiding a climate disaster and that CDR is needed. So switching ones
> emphasis to CDR  solution that can solve the problem from ones that cannot
> makes sense- to not change ones emphasis is illogical.
> The original approach has its origins in the original environmental
> movement in which renewable energy , emissions reductions ,and energy
> conservation were the central tenets. The latter two garnered the support
> of the people who believe industrialization and human consumption is the
&

Re: [geo] The influence of learning about (CDR) on support for mitigation policies

[Peter Eisenberger]

This line of reasoning is logically flawed and is one of the best examples
of how the role of CDR is misunderstood and distorted by others who have an
anti technology
orientation that pervaded the original environmental movement.

It is logically flawed because it is normal for people to react to news
that a new solution exists, CDR ,to a problem they thought they could solve
by renewable energy, emissions reductions and conservation .  The 2014 IPCC
report confirmed what many knew that those processes are not adequate for
avoiding a climate disaster and that CDR is needed. So switching ones
emphasis to CDR  solution that can solve the problem from ones that cannot
makes sense- to not change ones emphasis is illogical.
The original approach has its origins in the original environmental
movement in which renewable energy , emissions reductions ,and energy
conservation were the central tenets. The latter two garnered the support
of the people who believe industrialization and human consumption is the
real problem and want us to change. The two are combined in the moral
hazard argument - eg CDR will reduce our commitment to the previous plan
and will also be a technological fix that will argue against the
fundamental tenet of the early environmental supporters - human development
has to harm the environment so we have to reduce our footprint to zero.

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 11:59 PM, Andrew Lockley 
wrote:

> Poster's note: I'm working in this field, and the divide between liberals
> and conservatives is discussed in my paper. journals.sagepub.com/
> doi/full/10.1177/1461452916659830
>
>
> Climatic Change 
>
> August 2017, Volume 143, Issue 3–4
> , pp 321–336
> The influence of learning about carbon dioxide removal (CDR) on support
> for mitigation policies
>
>- Authors
>
>- Authors and affiliations
>
> 
>
>
>- Victoria Campbell-ArvaiEmail author 
>- P. Sol Hart
>- Kaitlin T. Raimi
>- Kimberly S. Wolske
>
>
>-
>   -
>
>-
>   -
>-
>   -
>-
>   -
>   -
>
>
>1. 1.
>2. 2.
>3. 3.
>4. 4.
>5. 5.
>
> Article
> First Online: 28 July 2017
> 
>
>- 44Shares
>
> 
>
>- 201Downloads
>
> Abstract
>
> A wide range of carbon dioxide removal (CDR) strategies has been proposed
> to address climate change. As most CDR strategies are unfamiliar to the
> public, it is unknown how increased media and policy attention on CDR might
> affect public sentiment about climate change. On the one hand, CDR poses a
> potential moral hazard: if people perceive that CDR solves climate change,
> they may be less likely to support efforts to reduce carbon emissions. On
> the other hand, the need for CDR may increase the perceived severity of
> climate change and, thus, increase support for other types of mitigation.
> Using an online survey of US adults (*N* = 984), we tested these
> competing hypotheses by exposing participants to information about
> different forms of CDR. We find that learning about certain CDR strategies
> indirectly reduces support for mitigation policies by reducing the
> perceived threat of climate change. This was found to be true for
> participants who read about CDR in general (without mention of specific
> strategies), bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, or direct air
> capture. Furthermore, this risk compensation pattern was more pronounced
> among political conservatives than liberals—although in some cases, was
> partially offset by positive direct effects. Learning about reforestation,
> by contrast, had no indirect effects on mitigation support through
> perceived threat but was found to directly increase support among
> conservatives. The results suggest caution is warranted when promoting
> technological fixes to climate change, like CDR, as some forms may further
> dampen support for climate change action among the unengaged.
> Electronic supplementary material
>
> The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s10584-017-2005-1
> ) contains supplementary
> material, which is available to authorized users.
>
> --
> 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 

Re: [geo] It’s time to start talking about “negative” carbon dioxide emissions

[Peter Eisenberger]

Stephen,

Yes it is difficult to do an assessment of CDR approaches well and yes the
problem is critical. The problem as I see it in the the response that it so
critical and so diffcult that to make an assesment
that we effectively legitimize any attempt to address climate change. This
in turn results in nothing really getting done. Even more debilitating we
waste alot of effort within the community that cares about this on arguing
with each other and negatively reacting to obvious distortions like BEECS
and corn based ethanol. This further prevents any consensus of how to
proceed on the carbon part of the problem . The renewable energy part was
able to move forward by focussing on two , solar and wind , and have made
good progress. I note that the advocates for those solutions have been
arguing against CDR because they worry it will take public support away
from their efforts.

The above has led me to suggest to all that will listen that if we are
serious we need to impose a discipline on the CDR community supported by a
committment to distinguish between those approaches that doing R makes
sense and others that we should focus on and get public support for because
they can solve the problem. At the moment the only two I think can scale to
address the carbon problem are DAC and Enhanced Weathering. However as
stated above  what I think is irrelevant - we need an independent
assessment by experts with public support to make the assessment needed.
Without that it seems very unlikely that anything will be done beyond what
is already happening. That in turn will guarantee we will go way above
500PPM .

On Mon, Aug 21, 2017 at 1:41 AM, Stephen Salter <s.sal...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> Janos
>
> All information about all methods is interesting but can be misused
> especially if it is not very accurate.  We are conditioned by television
> shows and Olympic gold medals to want a single winner when the difference
> between gold and silver is a tiny fraction of a second.
>
> The cost of climate change in money and human misery is so high that we
> will need every possible tool in the box and use them in harmony.
>
> I attach an example one attempt at assessment which continues to have a
> powerful effect on research policy.
>
> Stephen
>
>
> Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering,
> University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland
> s.sal...@ed.ac.uk, Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704 <+44%20131%20650%205704>, Cell
> 07795 203 195, WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for
> Change
>
> On 21/08/2017 10:16, Janos Pasztor wrote:
>
> Peter,
>
> The idea of scoring CDR methods is, in my view,  a good way forward.  Your
> set of criteria is a good start.  I would suggest that the criteria be
> qualitatively linked to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the
> related targets.  After all the world has agreed to pursue the SDGs as the
> common goals for the kind of world we want to live in.   That being the
> case, CDR methods have to fit into those goals one way or an other.   By
> quantitatively linking, the adjectives like “low” that you have used in
> your criteria can be better defined/quantified…
>
>  Janos
>
>
> ===
> Janos Pasztor
> Senior Fellow, Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs
> Executive Director, Carnegie Climate Geoengineering
> Governance Initiative (C2G2)
> 2 rue du Temple, CH-1180 Rolle, Switzerland
> Mobile: +41-79-739-5503 <+41%2079%20739%2055%2003>
> jpasz...@c2g2.net | Tw: @jpasztor  |  Skype: jpasztor
> www.c2g2.net
>
> On 21 Aug 2017, at 09:48, Peter Eisenberger <peter.eisenber...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I think it would be useful to develop a scoring system for comparing CDR
> approaches . One could develop a list of  the desireable attributes and a
> way to score each CDR approach .
> The scoring approach might involve distinquished organizations like the
> Royal Society or be incorporated into the IPCC reports. Those same
> approaches could reach a consensus on the attributes.
> The idea is to bring rigor to what now is a set of unsubstantiated
> assertions about different CDR approaches.  These usually feature the
> positive aspects provided by those doing it leaving a confusing
> situation that inhibits decision making. The absence of rigor creates
> results that has yielded solutions that make no sense based upon what we
> now know.  These include  BEECS , even worse  corn based ethanol, and I
> would claim also CCS for coal plants. They all reached some political
> consencus but make little if any scientific sense and will not be part of a
> sustanable solution. The main point is not to be negative about the past
> but to suggest moving forward what is needed is more rigor 

Re: [geo] It’s time to start talking about “negative” carbon dioxide emissions

[Peter Eisenberger]

I think it would be useful to develop a scoring system for comparing CDR
approaches . One could develop a list of  the desireable attributes and a
way to score each CDR approach .
The scoring approach might involve distinquished organizations like the
Royal Society or be incorporated into the IPCC reports. Those same
approaches could reach a consensus on the attributes.
The idea is to bring rigor to what now is a set of unsubstantiated
assertions about different CDR approaches.  These usually feature the
positive aspects provided by those doing it leaving a confusing
situation that inhibits decision making. The absence of rigor creates
results that has yielded solutions that make no sense based upon what we
now know.  These include  BEECS , even worse  corn based ethanol, and I
would claim also CCS for coal plants. They all reached some political
consencus but make little if any scientific sense and will not be part of a
sustanable solution. The main point is not to be negative about the past
but to suggest moving forward what is needed is more rigor in assessing CDR
approaches if we are to have useful decisions in the future.

In any case my criteria for a successful CDR approach are
1 it can scale to remove the amount of CO2 needed ( eg amount can change so
can it adjust upward if needed )
2 the Co2 removed from the atmosphere can be sequestered safely
3 a low and ideally positive  social cost of the CDR process per tonne of
Co2 removed - social cost =  ( the cost of the technology(so called private
cost)  plus the cost/benefit of the externalities (environmental damage ,
or loss of agriculture land increase social cost while positively increased
productivity of the land or use of CO2 to generate wealth like carbon fiber
can actual reduce the social cost below the private cost) )
4 low and ideally no risk of unintended consequences when practd at large
scale (minimal ideally zero impact on other geochemical cycles.
5 low energy use , water use ,and land use  land use

One could rank order each CDR approach in each category and then rank them
overall with the lowest total the best. Note for the record I have had my
students in my class at Columbia on Closing the Carbon Cycle rank the
various approaches for years and DAC wins hands down. Now I am aware that
my involvement could certainly skew the responses that is why i want an
independent effort . The royal society did this many years ago and i think
it is time to update it.

Most importantly if the scientific community remains fractured as it
currently is on this issue than progress is unlikely. If it self imposes a
discipline and a candor ( eg about BECCS annd Corn Based  Ethanol) than
there is a possibility a scientific consensus will emerge.  If we do not do
it nobody will.

On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Greg Rau  wrote:

> Agreed, but the issue is how does that and other important ideas get into
> CDR policy, roadmapping and PR while seemingly more complex yet limited
> approaches like BECCS take center stage - better marketing, lobbyists?
> Granted, BECCS generates negative emissions energy, but there are other
> methods of doing this, including some that don't rely on biology. Given the
> circumstances, do we really have the luxury of  ignoring any of these until
> they are proven (rather than assumed to be) irrelevant?
> Greg Rau
>
>
> --
> *From:* "Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf)" 
> *To:* "'gh...@sbcglobal.net'" ; "
> geoengineering@googlegroups.com" 
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 20, 2017 2:26 AM
> *Subject:* RE: [geo] It’s time to start talking about “negative” carbon
> dioxide emissions
>
> Well, the message is clear, but when I propose the most scalable and
> proven process, and probably the cheapest way, not many people seem to
> listen. So again:
> 1:The weathering of olivine (and some similar rocks as well) has made life
> possible on Earth
> 2: Life itself (mainly marine life), by practically storing all CO2 as
> limestones (made up of the calcite skeletons of corals, shellfish and
> plankton) has provided a huge storage capacity for CO2. Carbonate sediments
> contain about a million times all the CO2 in seas, the atmosphere and the
> biosphere together.
> 3. The needed additional storage capacity because we burn in a few hundred
> years all the coal, oil and natural gas that has taken hundreds of million
> years to form can be found in mining, milling and spreading olivine at
> locations which make rapid weathering of olivine possible, like tropical
> countries with high rainfall, or beaches with a strong surf, where coarse
> olivine grains can be dumped. These grains will collide in the surf, by
> which small slivers of olivine are knocked off. We have shown that thee
> slivers often are already weathered within ten days in the saline water.
> 4. There are much more olivine massifs at the Earth’s surface than we will
> ever 

Re: [geo] Bullshit in geoengineering discourse

[Peter Eisenberger]

>
>
> Note Jesse, Andy and Pete’s tropes paper too: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.
> com/doi/10.1002/2016EF000416/full
>
>
>
> doug
>
>
>
> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@
> googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Peter Eisenberger
> *Sent:* Sunday, August 06, 2017 6:04 AM
> *To:* Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>
> *Cc:* geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] Bullshit in geoengineering discourse
>
>
>
> I am not sure  if this approach does not risk making the same mistake that
> critics of geopengineering  do in using real examples of absurd arguments
> and then generalize
>
> to discredit others that are not worthy. I agree with some of your list
> but I personally know that it cam easily be proven scientiifically that DAC
> can be deployed at the scale needed
>
> to achieve the objectives of CDR and do so withiout any unintended risks
> that plaqued attempts like SRM. In fact DAC made it to your list because of
> the same type of n on scietific attacks that currrently plaque approaches
> like SRM. Non scientific statements like DAC will be too costy and moral
> hazard arguments have been used to create accepted myths about DAC to the
> extent it mde it on to your list(with equivocation)  .
>
>
>
>  I have made the point before that scientific community supporting the
> risk of climate change started the non scientific approach in response to
> attacks by climate deniers by over stating what models could predict.
>
> Because the climate system is a complex system by definition the
> "butterfly" risk exists. The risk that our rapid rate of Co2 change will
> initiate a mode that will cause great destruction definitely exists but it
> is essentially scientifically impossible to predict because from the
> currrent state a large number of future  paths exist which cannot at this
> time distinquish between and state with any meanigful accuracy whci state
> will actually emerge . This is just basic physics . So I claim
> scientifcally it is our ignorance of what risk we are actually taking by
> changing the CO2 concentration that is scientifically sound .  The claims
> that the modelling community can make assessments of the future state with
> scientically meaningful accuracy that reduces the existing risk of our lack
> of knowledge of the future is not scientifically sound. From many
> discussions i have had many agree with this but will not speak for fear of
> giving comfort to climate deniers. In turn of course I know seveal first
> class physicists that are offended by the climate predicitions made for the
> reason I stated and thus the non defensible predictions. This is  partly
> responsible for creating  the more scientific minded deniers. I employ
> everyone to refrain from exaggerated and non scientifically defensible
> statements. If science loses its objectivity we are truly in trouble.
>
>
>
> I am a strong supporter of research on SRM and other geoengineering
> approaches though I am skeptical that one will ever be able to remove the
> risks their deployment might create for reasons related to the above
> arguments. In fact I woulld like to be proven incorrect since if it were
> the case it would mean we understand things much better than we do now and
> that would be great.My reaction to the above is that it is easier for us to
> design the future than predict it. By this I mean we can develop
> capabilities like DAC and CDR and renewable energy and possible even SRM
>  so we can actually damp out any mode that threatens to grow and cause
> great destruction. That such an adaptive system is easier create than to
>  be able to predict the future with any meaningful accuracy. Having said
> that I want to be clear I also think modelling is valuable for it will help
> us identify early signs of modes that if allowed to grow could destabilize
> our climate. They can be used to create a so called planning horizon in
> which time we can be confident how the system will evolve.
>
>
>
> I hope we can all come together and instead of arguing with each other
> have a scientificaly sound debate where we all seek the best knowledge we
> can achieve independent of what that turns out to be. That is what science
> is about and we should all commit to doing it.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 1:06 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> I've been taking this MOOC in bullshit, from the University of Washington
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2OtU5vlR0k
>
>
>
> Simply put, bullshit is variously defined as (paraphrased)
>
> - Arguing persuasively, with total ignorance of (or indifference to)
> factu

Re: [geo] Bullshit in geoengineering discourse

[Peter Eisenberger]

I am not sure  if this approach does not risk making the same mistake that
critics of geopengineering  do in using real examples of absurd arguments
and then generalize
to discredit others that are not worthy. I agree with some of your list but
I personally know that it cam easily be proven scientiifically that DAC can
be deployed at the scale needed
to achieve the objectives of CDR and do so withiout any unintended risks
that plaqued attempts like SRM. In fact DAC made it to your list because of
the same type of n on scietific attacks that currrently plaque approaches
like SRM. Non scientific statements like DAC will be too costy and moral
hazard arguments have been used to create accepted myths about DAC to the
extent it mde it on to your list(with equivocation)  .

 I have made the point before that scientific community supporting the risk
of climate change started the non scientific approach in response to
attacks by climate deniers by over stating what models could predict.
Because the climate system is a complex system by definition the
"butterfly" risk exists. The risk that our rapid rate of Co2 change will
initiate a mode that will cause great destruction definitely exists but it
is essentially scientifically impossible to predict because from the
currrent state a large number of future  paths exist which cannot at this
time distinquish between and state with any meanigful accuracy whci state
will actually emerge . This is just basic physics . So I claim
scientifcally it is our ignorance of what risk we are actually taking by
changing the CO2 concentration that is scientifically sound .  The claims
that the modelling community can make assessments of the future state with
scientically meaningful accuracy that reduces the existing risk of our lack
of knowledge of the future is not scientifically sound. From many
discussions i have had many agree with this but will not speak for fear of
giving comfort to climate deniers. In turn of course I know seveal first
class physicists that are offended by the climate predicitions made for the
reason I stated and thus the non defensible predictions. This is  partly
responsible for creating  the more scientific minded deniers. I employ
everyone to refrain from exaggerated and non scientifically defensible
statements. If science loses its objectivity we are truly in trouble.

I am a strong supporter of research on SRM and other geoengineering
approaches though I am skeptical that one will ever be able to remove the
risks their deployment might create for reasons related to the above
arguments. In fact I woulld like to be proven incorrect since if it were
the case it would mean we understand things much better than we do now and
that would be great.My reaction to the above is that it is easier for us to
design the future than predict it. By this I mean we can develop
capabilities like DAC and CDR and renewable energy and possible even SRM
 so we can actually damp out any mode that threatens to grow and cause
great destruction. That such an adaptive system is easier create than to
 be able to predict the future with any meaningful accuracy. Having said
that I want to be clear I also think modelling is valuable for it will help
us identify early signs of modes that if allowed to grow could destabilize
our climate. They can be used to create a so called planning horizon in
which time we can be confident how the system will evolve.

I hope we can all come together and instead of arguing with each other have
a scientificaly sound debate where we all seek the best knowledge we can
achieve independent of what that turns out to be. That is what science is
about and we should all commit to doing it.

On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 1:06 AM, Andrew Lockley 
wrote:

> I've been taking this MOOC in bullshit, from the University of Washington
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2OtU5vlR0k
>
> Simply put, bullshit is variously defined as (paraphrased)
> - Arguing persuasively, with total ignorance of (or indifference to)
> factual accuracy
> - Deliberately misleading (mis)use of facts and data
>
> I'm planning a paper on "Bullshit in geoengineering discourse".
>
> I've identified the following common examples of bullshit, common in our
> field. I'd like to open up the discussion to the list, to provide more
> examples, and any favorite examples of the below (or new) bullshit
> arguments. I've listed advocates of the arguments, where these are
> top-of-mind
> - Geoengineering allows continued emissions (BAU) - Freakonomics
> - Scientists working on CE are offering it as an alternative to mitigation
> - Terrestrial BECCS can be deployed at scale - Paris
> - Termination shock is a likely socio-technical risk from SRM
> - DAC is a viable strategy at for at-scale CDR (controversial?)
> - SRM will cause monsoon failure
> - SRM will be deployed at a scale leading to widespread drying
> - Geoengineering could cause a snowball earth (snowpiercer)
> - Moral hazard exists 

Re: [geo] CLIMEWORKS

[Peter Eisenberger]

The Global Thermostat technology for which I am the CTO has operated plants
at comparable capacity and at lower cost than Climeworks many years ago.
We are currently building our first commercial plant that will be
operational next year at under $100 dollars per tonne,both Capex and Opex ,
and can reach costs of lower than $50 per tonne by our tenth plant due to
straighforward reductions in manufacturing costs.   We have already
demonstrated to independent third party experts our low cost potential.
This has enabled us to get investment and commercial deals so we are in
great shape  commercially since our low cost makes many uses of the CO2 we
capture from the air profitable.

My great personal frustration and concern  is that in spite of our
achievements and claims,  that even a reading of our published  patents
would make clear why we have achieved a breakthrough in cost, the  world
still believes DAC has to be costly. Our claims are largely ignored even
 by DAC  experts like Klaus and David Keith in spite of my many offers to
them to share our information with them .  I claim the properties of our
contactor compared to what others use,  that are well understood,  and the
innovative  process we use to regenerate the CO2 we capture with a standard
sorbent PEI described in our patents,  are enough for experts like them to
understand why our costs are lower than the paths others have pursued. I
want to be very precise in what I am claiming. We do still need to operate
our plants under commercial conditions to claim commercial success. Any
problems that might arise will not be show stoppers and not alter the fact
that our innovative approach has generically identified a low cost approach
to DAC. it is this latter point I am trying to get accepted so we can put
the high cost issue of DAC behind us.

Newspaper stories about the  costs  of Climeworks are accepted without the
independent verifcation by expert third parties that GT technology has been
through. They are discussed in blogs like this which then unfortunately
support the view that DAC is too costly.  I do agree the Climeworks
 efforts should be lauded and not criticized but I also believe that the
DAC community should also note that our approach based on first principles
of higher throughput  and lower capital and lower energy use identified in
our patents provides the basis for low cost DAC . If accepted rather than
ignored it would help get support for others for DAC efforts.  Because the
issue of the cost of DAC is so important we at GT would agree to counter
any claims of conflict of interest not to take any public funding  at this
time. But many others and our ability to address climate change would
benefit if the world knew that low under $50 per tonne DAC is feasible and
a path to achieve it.  I personally hope the future efforts of others will
find other ways to achieve even lower costs because the issue at stake is
so important and the markets so large that we need a DAC  industry. Many
companies will need to be profitable, if we are to meet the challenge of
climate change.

Whether  my pleas continue to go unheeded or not , we at GT will proceed
and when our plant is operational we will make clear that  low costs DAC
has been achieved in practice.  I just am not sure and concerned that the
delay this implies will not come at a high cost which is why I have written
this note.  I apologize in advance to both Klaus and David, who I have the
greatest respect for and whose pioneering work motivated my interest in
DAC,  for going public with my concern and  frustration. I hope they will
understand and we can proceed amicably on a path that is best for the goal
we alll share.


On Sun, Jul 30, 2017 at 1:10 PM, Andrew Lockley 
wrote:

> To continue from Klaus' point... Swanson's law notes falling cost of solar
> modules. ~7yrs halving time (balance of system, transmission costs aren't
> falling so fast) - but nevertheless it's a steep fall. The nature of solar
> is that it's likely to be overbuilt, so there's going to be glut of cheap
> power for, well, pretty much anything you want. Making hydrogen,
> desalination, long-distance water pumping, heating swimming pools,
> whatever. DAC could be a use-case, but it still needs a biz model.
>
> Nothing I've seen suggests DAC will be cheaper than throwing rocks in the
> sea.
>
> A
>
> On 30 July 2017 at 21:58, Klaus Lackner  wrote:
>
>> Just to make sure, I just looked up the price of steel it is about $300
>> per ton.  So $60 added for the CO2 would be quite a correction.   Maybe
>> that can be reduced somewhat, but I agree with you that it is significant
>> and if carbon prices are not the same everywhere, this could lead to
>> significant distortions in the market.
>>
>>
>>
>> However, DAC can help here.  Because it sets a global price on carbon in
>> the sense that anyone wanting to fix the problem can do so at this price.
>> Specifically it becomes