Hi All
Further to Oliver's email, my understanding is that the bio-diversity
agreement, not ratified by everyone, says that is that it is bad form to
introduce any new chemical materials into the marine environment. This
does not seem to be applied to CO2 or plastic bags.
Marine cloud
Hi Stephen – I agree completely that we can learn more, should learn more, and
don’t need to learn every last detail. Though I think it’s fair to say that we
need to learn more about the physics than we currently do in order to assess
what cloud and meteorological conditions are conducive to
Hi Douglas
You write that we do not understand the really basic physics of marine
cloud brightening. I do not understand the really basic physics of
gravity and magnetism at the Higgs level but I can make machines which
move in the right way and do not fall down. I can also ride a bicycle
That formations can be tight for millennia is not the issue, nor is the
technology, accidents not withstanding.
The issue always is the humans and the financial/legal aspects.
There are significant data on finishing well bores; these have been available
for decades.
The more professional the
As I've said, I am all for social and governance research. I do wonder
some times if as critical attention is being given to the social,
governance (and ethical), etc. aspects of our ongoing use of GHGs. And
fine for renewables as well, but also in a balanced way compared to what
we consider
Hi Mike,
I'm certainly not wanting to frame any kind of GE in terms of 1950s paradigms
(although the history can sometimes be enlightening, and may not be quite as
left behind as we might hope for - the military fantasies, for example, still
seem to feature in talk about it)
I certainly
Hi Jonathan--I can certainly agree that research is needed on the social
sciences and governance--my main concern is about the framing for
pursing this research, which too often, from my limited perspective,
seems to be evaluating SRM or not (an evaluation appropriate to how
geoengineering was
Dear Michael--
I'd suggest that your summary of the situation is not how I would
characterize the situation, so I'll try rewriting to indicate my view of
the situation.
1. CCS is Carbon Capture and Storage and refers to capturing the CO2 in
the exhaust stream of a fossil fuel burning
Hi Mike,
>Well, if you (on behalf of society) want to stay in the pot of water being
>heated instead of take the risk of jumping out,
>then we'll all be quite well cooked.
This is probably a false dichotomy - as a frog I would rather take a look
around, because if I jump into the fire or
Dear Jon--Well, if you (on behalf of society) want to stay in the pot of
water being heated instead of take the risk of jumping out, then we'll
all be quite well cooked.
I agree there are challenges. I should suggest, however, that while one
cannot really check the system out beforehand,
Dear Mike and Jonathan
I enjoy quietly reading this list and learn, especially from atmospheric and
arctic scientists.
As a non-scientist I note that the economics and the science seem to indicate
that:
CCS is expensive (because social costs of burning fossil fuels are
externalities not born
The fear of leakage strikes me as one of those “ghosts in the night”, a
goblin that leads to yet more delay. Natural gas reservoirs have held
methane at very high pressure for ~100 million years or more. Sealing
technology for wells tapping and producing that natural gas is outstanding:
the
Just to "inject" a comment on this point:"Large-scale CO2 disposal (CDD), on
the other hand, will necessarily take decades to ramp up, because it’ll take
that long to establish leakage rates from geological reservoirs, monitor the
impact on ocean biology or circulation if an ocean storage route
Hi Myles,
Broadly agree that because of the scale issue, it necessarily takes longer to
ramp up CDD. Just two comments:
1. I think that with some amount of money (probably a few billion) we
could technically get some stratospheric aerosol injection in of order 3-5
years, but it
The real thing to remember about governance is that it is often about politics
and preserving the social status quo.
Just as current governance processes seem often to be about protecting the
fossil fuel industries from any harm.
I would imagine the most likely result of changing the rules
Indeed it can become less important. However it depends on the rate-limiting
step. In many of these processes, mass transfer can be the limitation, so
higher partial pressure of CO2 will be helpful. If you have large surface areas
this helps too. I suppose the point I'm making is that we should
Nilay,You are right that concentration matters, especially if you are making
concentrated CO2 from dilute sources. On the other hand, this is less of
problem/issue if you are: 1) directly reacting CO2 out of air and making and
storing carbon compounds other than CO2, 2) using large, reactive
On Sunday, 20 November 2016 19:56:37 UTC, n.shah wrote:
>
> Dear Olaf,
>
>
>
> Although I can see where you are coming from, I have to disagree with one
> statement. The CO2 that is in flue gas **is** different from that in the
> atmosphere in terms of what needs to be done to capture it and
Dear Olaf,
Although I can see where you are coming from, I have to disagree with one
statement. The CO2 that is in flue gas *is* different from that in the
atmosphere in terms of what needs to be done to capture it and lock it away,
almost regardless of the technology used. That is because the
I think we can agree on both being potentially needed to meet any reasonably
ambitious temperature goal, precisely because both are also potentially
unfeasible for either technical, economic or socio-political reasons. Hence my
use of “may be our only option.”
But there is a timescale
Hi All
It is much easier to change legal rules about liability and governance
than to alter the laws of physics and the boundaries of engineering. The
rules will be changed in an instant when the results of climate change
get bad enough. But now the arguments about them are wasting time
I much agree with the statements, except the use of ccs instead of cdr, see
attachment, olaf schuiling
From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: zaterdag 19 november 2016 15:49r
To: Geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject:
http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/opinion/view/346
CO2 capture may be our only option for stabilising temperatures - we need
to find out the costs, fast
15 Sep 2016
Professor Myles Allen, Co-Director of the Oxford Martin Net Zero Carbon
Initiative, gives his views on a new report on carbon
23 matches
Mail list logo
