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

[Greg Rau]

At the risk of further stuffing peoples' mailboxes, I'm reposting this to the 
CDR group given the relevance of the ongoing dialogue over at geo.Greg

  From: Michael MacCracken <mmacc...@comcast.net>
 To: peter.eisenber...@gmail.com; davidkeit...@gmail.com 
Cc: geoengineering <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>
 Sent: Friday, November 24, 2017 2:33 PM
 Subject: Re: [geo] Re: [CDR] The International Conference on Negative CO2 
Emissions » 22-24 May 2018
   
 Hi Peter E--
  Is there any chance that APS might redo its study and this might lead to a 
statement that brings the various views together on the projected cost of CDR 
(so capture and storage) at large scale? Is the current NAS study being 
considered as a path for this to occur?
 
 Mike MacCracken
 
 On 11/24/17 2:35 PM, Peter Eisenberger wrote:
  
 David , First and foremost not only are we on the same side but I consider you 
a leader generally and specifically in the issue of  SRM  and CDR  issues.  No 
one  has more experience than you in those two technologies. Frankly it is for 
that reason I have been surprised that you shifted your focus to SRM , which 
whether intended or not is a statement itself  given the leadership position 
you had in CDR/DAC. It is not just my opinion but also of your DAC colleagues 
that intentional or not you convey , consistent with your email response , that 
you are pessimistic about the potential of low cost DAC. The irony I find in 
this is that from my perspective the impact of that perception on  DAC today is 
what the APS did ten years ago to you- making assertions that DAC is costly 
with no real scientific basis . You seem willing to put enormous effort into 
SRM  yet have not made the effort to find out for yourself whether my claims 
are plausible or not. In fact to be candid as a physicist I believe you can 
easily  determine for your self by reading our published patents why GT 
represents a cost breakthrough in DAC technology. I invite you to visit me at a 
time of your convenience or I believe we can go quite far over the phone. I 
hope that you will not say in the future that you have not seen the evidence 
but make the  more accurate statement that you have not yet sought to get the 
evidence with anywhere the same vigor that you have pursued SRM . As I said I 
do not understand why you switched your focus before doing so.    
  In that regard the most experienced companies in processing gases from the 
air all have looked at our technology and validated its low cost potential. In 
one case they observed us for over five years and operated our plants. The 
person leading  that effort for one of the companies  quit his job  to join us 
. He is scientist of high reputation but also arose to a high management  level 
in his company . I believe you know him and I know he would be glad to talk 
with you and tell you as he did  others at meeting at ASU and the Virgin Earth 
Prize Judges that GT technology can capture CO2  for under $50 /tonne. He 
looked at all DAC technologies as did all the other companies and all have 
expressed a desire to work with GT.  
  In addition I think there is a difference between emissions reductions  of 
the CCS kind (not replacing fossil with solar ) and CDR even though as you say 
the CO2 math in the short term seems unaffected.  This is because of the power 
of learning by doing and that all the costs come at the end when ones doubling 
of capacity involve massive amounts of new plants. Thus for fixed dollar 
allocation if one invests it all in DAC/CDR and none in CCS  one will get to an 
ambient  co2 concentration sooner and for less money than than doing CCS first 
and then CDR. Some people use the cost differential  to argue against this but 
fail to analyze  the learning by doing positive feedback . But most important  
at $50 DAC retrofits of CCS plants produce more costly CO2 and have high costs 
to get it to where it can be sequestered. The leading gas companies are coming 
to this same conclusion.    
  I argue that the misconception about the cost of DAC, started by the APS , is 
causing us to make bad strategic choices for how to address the threat of 
climate change -this is not some small academic debate we are having. I 
strongly believe future generations will judge us harshly from us not having 
the discipline to at least base our actions on what is knowable if we made the  
effort to know it.  I have told others I wish i was not associated with a DAC 
technology so i would have greater credibility for this important issue. I have 
pledged not to take any public money if the call for a strong effort in DAC is 
responded to . That and trying to reach out to experts like you is my attempt 
to be responsible . My investors have no interest in having others know that  
low cost DAC CO2 is achievable.    
  David , we are on the same side, I greatly respect your capabilities ,and you 
are  playing a very important role in the climate challenge 

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

[Michael MacCracken]

Hi Peter E--

Is there any chance that APS might redo its study and this might lead to 
a statement that brings the various views together on the projected cost 
of CDR (so capture and storage) at large scale? Is the current NAS study 
being considered as a path for this to occur?


Mike MacCracken

On 11/24/17 2:35 PM, Peter Eisenberger wrote:

David ,
First and foremost not only are we on the same side but I consider you 
a leader generally and specifically in the issue of  SRM  and CDR  
issues.  No one
has more experience than you in those two technologies. Frankly it is 
for that reason I have been surprised that you shifted your focus to 
SRM , which whether intended or not is a statement itself
given the leadership position you had in CDR/DAC. It is not just my 
opinion but also of your DAC colleagues that intentional or not you 
convey , consistent with your email response , that you are 
pessimistic about the potential of low cost DAC. The irony I find in 
this is that from my perspective the impact of that perception on  DAC 
today is what the APS did ten years ago to you- making assertions that 
DAC is costly with no real scientific basis . You seem willing to put 
enormous effort into SRM  yet have not made the effort to find out for 
yourself whether my claims are plausible or not. In fact to be candid 
as a physicist I believe you can easily determine for your self by 
reading our published patents why GT represents a cost breakthrough in 
DAC technology. I invite you to visit me at a time of your convenience 
or I believe we can go quite far over the phone. I hope that you will 
not say in the future that you have not seen the evidence but make the 
more accurate statement that you have not yet sought to get the 
evidence with anywhere the same vigor that you have pursued SRM . As I 
said I do not understand why you switched your focus before doing so.


In that regard the most experienced companies in processing gases from 
the air all have looked at our technology and validated its low cost 
potential. In one case they observed us for over five years and 
operated our plants. The person leading  that effort for one of the 
companies  quit his job to join us . He is scientist of high 
reputation but also arose to a high management  level in his company . 
I believe you know him and I know he would be glad to talk with you 
and tell you as he did  others at meeting at ASU and the Virgin Earth 
Prize Judges that GT technology can capture CO2  for under $50 /tonne. 
He looked at all DAC technologies as did all the other companies and 
all have expressed a desire to work with GT.


In addition I think there is a difference between emissions 
reductions  of the CCS kind (not replacing fossil with solar ) and CDR 
even though as you say the CO2 math in the short term seems unaffected.
This is because of the power of learning by doing and that all the 
costs come at the end when ones doubling of capacity involve massive 
amounts of new plants. Thus for fixed dollar allocation if one invests 
it all in DAC/CDR and none in CCS one will get to an ambient  co2 
concentration sooner and for less money than than doing CCS first and 
then CDR. Some people use the cost differential  to argue against this 
but fail to analyze  the learning by doing positive feedback . But 
most important  at $50 DAC retrofits of CCS plants produce more costly 
CO2 and have high costs to get it to where it can be sequestered. The 
leading gas companies are coming to this same conclusion.


I argue that the misconception about the cost of DAC, started by the 
APS , is causing us to make bad strategic choices for how to address 
the threat of climate change -this is not some small academic debate 
we are having. I strongly believe future generations will judge us 
harshly from us not having the discipline to at least base our actions 
on what is knowable if we made the  effort to know it.  I have told 
others I wish i was not associated with a DAC technology so i would 
have greater credibility for this important issue. I have pledged not 
to take any public money if the call for a strong effort in DAC is 
responded to . That and trying to reach out to experts like you is my 
attempt to be responsible . My investors have no interest in having 
others know that low cost DAC CO2 is achievable.


David , we are on the same side, I greatly respect your capabilities 
,and you are  playing a very important role in the climate challenge 
we face. Let us find a way to get you what you need so you can add 
your voice that low cost DAC -say under $50 per tonne is feasible. As 
you know I support research on SRM but I am sure you agree with me 
that if low cost DAC  is achievable it deserves a high priority of 
efforts to develop it for large scale deployment and we can ill afford 
any further delay .


With best regards,
Peter

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 12:09 PM, David Keith > 

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

[Peter Eisenberger]

David ,
First and foremost not only are we on the same side but I consider you a
leader generally and specifically in the issue of  SRM  and CDR  issues.
No one
has more experience than you in those two technologies. Frankly it is for
that reason I have been surprised that you shifted your focus to SRM ,
which whether intended or not is a statement itself
given the leadership position you had in CDR/DAC. It is not just my opinion
but also of your DAC colleagues that intentional or not you convey ,
consistent with your email response , that you are pessimistic about the
potential of low cost DAC. The irony I find in this is that from my
perspective the impact of that perception on  DAC today is what the APS did
ten years ago to you- making assertions that DAC is costly with no real
scientific basis . You seem willing to put enormous effort into SRM  yet
have not made the effort to find out for yourself whether my claims are
plausible or not. In fact to be candid as a physicist I believe you can
easily determine for your self by reading our published patents why GT
represents a cost breakthrough in DAC technology. I invite you to visit me
at a time of your convenience or I believe we can go quite far over the
phone. I hope that you will not say in the future that you have not seen
the evidence but make the more accurate statement that you have not yet
sought to get the evidence with anywhere the same vigor that you have
pursued SRM . As I said I do not understand why you switched your focus
before doing so.

In that regard the most experienced companies in processing gases from the
air all have looked at our technology and validated its low cost potential.
In one case they observed us for over five years and operated our plants.
The person leading  that effort for one of the companies  quit his job  to
join us . He is scientist of high reputation but also arose to a high
management  level in his company . I believe you know him and I know he
would be glad to talk with you and tell you as he did  others at meeting at
ASU and the Virgin Earth Prize Judges that GT technology can capture CO2
for under $50 /tonne. He looked at all DAC technologies as did all the
other companies and all have expressed a desire to work with GT.

In addition I think there is a difference between emissions reductions  of
the CCS kind (not replacing fossil with solar ) and CDR even though as you
say the CO2 math in the short term seems unaffected.
This is because of the power of learning by doing and that all the costs
come at the end when ones doubling of capacity involve massive amounts of
new plants. Thus for fixed dollar allocation if one invests it all in
DAC/CDR and none in CCS  one will get to an ambient  co2 concentration
sooner and for less money than than doing CCS first and then CDR. Some
people use the cost differential  to argue against this but fail to
analyze  the learning by doing positive feedback . But most important  at
$50 DAC retrofits of CCS plants produce more costly CO2 and have high costs
to get it to where it can be sequestered. The leading gas companies are
coming to this same conclusion.

I argue that the misconception about the cost of DAC, started by the APS ,
is causing us to make bad strategic choices for how to address the threat
of climate change -this is not some small academic debate we are having. I
strongly believe future generations will judge us harshly from us not
having the discipline to at least base our actions on what is knowable if
we made the  effort to know it.  I have told others I wish i was not
associated with a DAC technology so i would have greater credibility for
this important issue. I have pledged not to take any public money if the
call for a strong effort in DAC is responded to . That and trying to reach
out to experts like you is my attempt to be responsible . My investors have
no interest in having others know that  low cost DAC CO2 is achievable.

David , we are on the same side, I greatly respect your capabilities ,and
you are  playing a very important role in the climate challenge we face.
Let us find a way to get you what you need so you can add your voice that
low cost DAC -say under $50 per tonne is feasible. As you know I support
research on SRM but I am sure you agree with me that if low cost DAC  is
achievable it deserves a high priority of efforts to develop it for large
scale deployment and we can ill afford any further delay .

With best regards,
Peter

On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 12:09 PM, David Keith 
wrote:

> Peter
>
> I’m sorry you’re frustrated. I don’t think your interpretation is entirely
> fair.
>
>
> It would be ridiculous to claim that solar geoengineering is “necessary”.
>
>
> I did not make that claim here and I believe I’ve been consistent on this
> over years in writing and speaking. I don’t believe I said anything to
> contradict that view in this interview. It’s true I did not specifically
> say in this interview that this was 

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

[David Keith]

Peter

I’m sorry you’re frustrated. I don’t think your interpretation is entirely 
fair.


It would be ridiculous to claim that solar geoengineering is “necessary”.


I did not make that claim here and I believe I’ve been consistent on this 
over years in writing and speaking. I don’t believe I said anything to 
contradict that view in this interview. It’s true I did 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 
.
 


 

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 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 

[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.