Re: [CDR] Digest for CarbonDioxideRemoval@googlegroups.com - 1 update in 1 topic
15 views
Skip to first unread message
Laura Wasserson
Aug 21, 2023, 11:52:18 AM8/21/23
to CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com
Thank you for reaching out. I am out of the office until August 28, with limited access to email.
If your matter is urgent and requires immediate attention please contact fl...@climitigation.org or er...@climitigation.org.
For non-urgent matters, I will attend to your email as soon as I return. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and appreciate your understanding.
Best,
Laura
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 17:51:56 +0200, CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com wrote:
Laura Wasserson <la...@climitigation.org>: Aug 21 08:51AM -0700
Thank you for reaching out. I am out of the office until August 28, with
limited access to email.
If your matter is urgent and requires immediate attention please contact
fl...@climitigation.org or er...@climitigation.org.
For non-urgent matters, I will attend to your email as soon as I return. I
apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and appreciate your
understanding.
Best,
Laura
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 17:51:07 +0200, CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com
wrote:
CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com
<https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#!forum/CarbonDioxideRemoval/topics>
Groups
<https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email/#!overview>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email/#!overview>
Topic digest
View all topics
<https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#!forum/CarbonDioxideRemoval/topics>
- Summary of current price per kg of DAC and other CDR technologies....
<http://#group_thread_0> - 14 Updates
- Impact of wet-dry cycles on enhanced rock weathering of brucite,
wollastonite, serpentinite and kimberlite: Implications for carbon
verification <http://#group_thread_1> - 1 Update
- Alkalinity generation from carbonate weathering in a
silicate-dominated headwater catchment at Iskorasfjellet, northern Norway
<http://#group_thread_2> - 1 Update
- Direct Air Capture of CO2 Using Amine/Alumina Sorbents at Cold
Temperature <http://#group_thread_3> - 1 Update
Summary of current price per kg of DAC and other CDR technologies....
<http://groups.google.com/group/CarbonDioxideRemoval/t/fd5503e1e11617f7?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email>
Amal Bhattarai <amalbh...@gmail.com>: Aug 20 09:27AM -0700
Www.CDR.fyi tracks commercial “current” prices for the most popular
methods; prices include the (astronomical) profit.
What the prices “should” be is too early to calculate, because many CDR
techniques have not yet been sufficiently developed or have not entered the
“marketplace”….
"Clive Elsworth" <Cl...@EndorphinSoftware.co.uk>: Aug 20 06:43PM +0100
Dan
Thanks for the ambient carbon link, which mentions using Cl2 which splits
in the presence of light. It produces HCl (and CO2 and H2O), and each Cl
atom removes one methane molecule. (BTW we’ve known David Miller several
years.)
What we have been proposing for the atmosphere is using a photocatalytic
cycle, in which each chlorine atom gets recycled many times to remove many
methane molecules – we estimate around 1000 with our latest proposed
aerosol formulation.
Solar PV and renewables
I wonder what the embedded CO2 is in this cheap solar PV? China appears
quite happy to install ever more coal power for any of its manufacturing.
RethinkX seems to think any location is suitable for renewables, which
doesn’t seem credible to me for places that are not very windy or sunny.
The cost of transmission then becomes a constraint. The mining of ever
lower grade ores to satisfy renewables’ (and the associated grid’s)
voracious appetite for resources per unit of energy generation capacity
looks ecologically damaging to me, not to mention a health hazard to those
who live nearby or work in the mines.
Moltex Energy foresee a future complementing renewables by peaking during
the troughs. They have no fear of their power stations becoming stranded
assets. They also don’t see the (for now) declining cost of lithium
batteries threatening their GridReserve heat storage. Other storage types
maybe. But heat storage in nitrate salt tanks is cheap, and they’ll just
replace those with whatever becomes cheaper.
But whether a mix of energy sources, or renewables wins out it’s good news
if energy becomes cheap all around the world, because that ought eventually
to enable the politicians to enact carbon pricing to phase out fossil
fuels. That is the important point here.
But let’s not hold our breaths, and not forget the need for immediate
cooling of the oceans.
Clive
From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <
carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Dan Miller
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2023 4:14 PM
To: Clive Elsworth <Cl...@EndorphinSoftware.co.uk>
Cc: Michael Hayes <electro...@gmail.com>; Peter Eisenberger <
peter.ei...@gmail.com>; Chris Van Arsdale <cvana...@google.com>;
Gregory Slater <ten...@gmail.com>; Carbon Dioxide Removal <
CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>; via NOAC Meetings <
noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; David S. Miller <da...@ambientcarbon.com>
Subject: [CDR] Re: 20 point plan
See my responses in blue.
On Aug 20, 2023, at 3:25 AM, Clive Elsworth <Cl...@EndorphinSoftware.co.uk
<mailto:Cl...@EndorphinSoftware.co.uk> > wrote:
Dan
Thanks for your 20-point plan. Questions and comments:
1. How can new fossil fuel infrastructure be banned in China or any country
other than your own? - It’s a *global* plan.
2. For fee and dividend to work it must essentially be global, which means
either sufficiently strong border adjustment inducements, or going straight
to a global carbon price, preferably also rising gradually. That would
incentivise development of cost-effective, zero carbon power sources like
nothing else. - yes, F&D should be global & can be via boarder adjustments.
See my TEDx talk: https://youtu.be/0k2-SzlDGko
3. I don’t see in your list a plan to ‘fast track’ the development of
Generation 4 nuclear power, some of which is estimated to generate
electricity cheaper than fossil fuels: $35/MWh baseload, $54/MWh peaked
i.e. driven from heat storage. Some can also supply ~800oC process heat for
around $10/MWh. The capital cost is ~$2/Watt or probably less. Currently
the First of a Kind reactor is expected to begin operating in the UK around
2030 (the MoltexFLEX reactor). - Nuclear is safe, but it is much more
expensive than renewables and takes much longer to install. By the time
that Gen4/SMR are available, solar PV will cost $0.01/kWh and batteries
will cost a fraction of what they do now (which is 10% of what they cost
10~15 years ago). See: https://www.rethinkx.com/energy
4. It’s great to see you listing funding for R&D into solar radiation
management. We believe there is great scope for doing that in the
troposphere by increasing the amount of haze and brightening clouds, mainly
in the tropics and subtropics. Cooling the oceans where they are hottest
would cool the rest of them, including the polar regions. - With an AMOC
collapse *expected* around mid-century, we are going to need to fast track
SMR deployment!
5. Do you have a cost estimate for plugging all methane leaks? <
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-drilling-abandoned-specialreport-idUSKBN23N1NL>
Reuters estimates there are around 29 million abandoned oil/gas world
internationally, and more than 3.2 million in the USA. - I don’t have a
cost estimate for plugging the leaks but I am quite sure the cost is much
less than the cost of *not* plugging them!
6. What about the main methane sources, which are wetlands and agriculture,
with melting permafrost likely increasing to become significant, not to
mention the threat of shallow seabed melting permafrost? - That’s bad too
and it is one of the reasons we need to deploy SMR soon!
7. Are you open to the idea of enhancing the natural atmospheric methane
sink? The putative description of part of this mechanism done by chlorine
radicals from dust particles in the Oeste et al 2017 paper was recently
measured and described here:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2303974120. Mimicking this mechanism
would (subject to further testing and modelling) also remove other oxidable
short-lived climate forcing agents, the main other ones being tropospheric
ozone and black carbon aerosol. Research is ongoing into this, but we could
sure use more funding. - I haven’t looked into that specifically, but my
brother runs a company that mimics the natural destruction of methane in
order to eradicate methane from low-concentration sources:
https://ambientcarbon.com
Clive
From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <mailto:
carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> <
carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <mailto:
carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> > On Behalf Of Dan Miller
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2023 3:56 AM
To: Michael Hayes <electro...@gmail.com <mailto:electro...@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Eisenberger <peter.ei...@gmail.com <mailto:
peter.ei...@gmail.com> >; Chris Van Arsdale <cvana...@google.com
<mailto:cvana...@google.com> >; Gregory Slater <ten...@gmail.com
<mailto:ten...@gmail.com> >; Carbon Dioxide Removal <
CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [CDR] Summary of current price per kg of DAC and other CDR
technologies....
I would suggest that current numbers for cost of CDR are not meaningful.
These are numbers for kiloton per year capture vs. the needed gigaton per
year (1,000,000X more). Learning curves should bring the cost down by about
an order of magnitude or more.
And I don’t understand the discussion of “cost effectiveness” for CDR. It’s
bit like asking about the cost effectiveness of heart bypass surgery.
Without it, you’re dead. How do you calculate the ROI?
The bottom line is that the cost of doing CDR at scale (I estimate it’s
$2T/year for -40 Gt/y) is much less than the cost of *not* doing it. So,
from that point of view, it’s very cost effective.
And, no, there is not a tradeoff between CDR and emissions reduction using
renewable energy. An emissions reduction only approach leads to >2ºC
warming which is catastrophic. So CDR is required on top of the most
aggressive emissions reduction we can muster. Emissions reduction only also
leads to an AMOC collapse around mid-century, so SRM is also required.
I notice that a lot of the negative discussion around CDR recently assumes
we will not have any serious policy to fight climate change. That is why
they think a dollar spent on CDR is a dollar not spent on RE. They also
worry that CDR will give FF companies more social license to continue their
business. It’s like we are asking FF companies to "pretty please" reduce
their business. This makes sense since we currently have no serious policy
in place to fight climate change and we continue to choose to fail, as
Kevin Anderson puts it. Well, I have news for everyone. If we continue to
choose to fail, we will fail!
But we can choose to succeed and put serious policies in place to quickly
phase out fossil fuels, scale up CDR, and get going with SRM. Notice that I
didn’t mention RE there. If we phase out FF, then RE will take its place.
No need to subsidize it (which results in more RE than we need).
Once again, here is my suggested 20-point policy plan to fight climate
change, in case we choose to succeed.
Dan
On Aug 19, 2023, at 8:48 PM, Michael Hayes <electro...@gmail.com
<mailto:electro...@gmail.com> > wrote:
Peter, et al.,
The NOAA mCDR team is already doing a deep evaluation of mCDR methods. If
anything, they are creating a template for non mCDR methods to follow.
Best regards
On Sat, Aug 19, 2023, 5:11 PM Peter Eisenberger <peter.ei...@gmail.com
<mailto:peter.ei...@gmail.com> > wrote:
Thanks for the reference. I looked at the DACCS evaluation and noted
the comment that it lacked any co benefits that would enhance its adoption.
I wrote a paper in 2012 that showed that DACUS ( eg use and storage ) would
provide such co benefits
turning it from a cost to a profitable equitable and sustainable approach
to climate change protection
https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.14976
I do applaud their efforts because it is exactly what is needed so as to
focus our efforts on the most
promising approaches - time is a critical factor and we need a coordinated
effort to scale the most promising
approaches. We need to come together and carry out an independent
assessment with the best experts of the many approaches
and provide the policy makers with a technical assessment that can guide
their policy efforts.
On Sat, Aug 19, 2023 at 3:08 PM 'Chris Van Arsdale' via Carbon Dioxide
Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com <mailto:
CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com> > wrote:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/acacb3/pdf
... not that everyone agrees with those numbers.
On Sat, Aug 19, 2023 at 2:52 PM Gregory Slater <ten...@gmail.com <mailto:
ten...@gmail.com> > wrote:
Hello All,
Could someone point me to a good 'spreadsheet-like' summary of the current
price per kg of CO2 removal for the various CDR technologies/methods? Also
interested in a 'time per kg' (removal timescale, including the time it
takes to build out the infrastructure) for all CDR technologies.
Thanks for any help,
Greg Slater
--
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 CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com <mailto:
CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com> .
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/1f05b81a-4a2c-4914-a824-ba1f7764aff3n%40googlegroups.com
<
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/1f05b81a-4a2c-4914-a824-ba1f7764aff3n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
.
--
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 CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com <mailto:
CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com> .
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CADzNRbYAprTv658Q3hHEa5jTdbzA_s3F7YKoHjhSZ6OH-f1haQ%40mail.gmail.com
<
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CADzNRbYAprTv658Q3hHEa5jTdbzA_s3F7YKoHjhSZ6OH-f1haQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
.
--
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
"Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com <mailto:
CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com> .
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CANx_M7Sx0Opks%2BZp5huBEui5RRkSMr1mB4pXdNc%3D8MBqBjMuug%40mail.gmail.com
<
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CANx_M7Sx0Opks%2BZp5huBEui5RRkSMr1mB4pXdNc%3D8MBqBjMuug%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
.
--
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 CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com <mailto:
CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com> .
To view this discussion on the web visit
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
Laura Wasserson
Aug 23, 2023, 11:52:19 AM8/23/23
to CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com
Thank you for reaching out. I am out of the office until August 28, with limited access to email.
If your matter is urgent and requires immediate attention please contact fl...@climitigation.org or er...@climitigation.org.
For non-urgent matters, I will attend to your email as soon as I return. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and appreciate your understanding.
Best,
Laura
On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 17:51:57 +0200, CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com wrote:
Laura Wasserson <la...@climitigation.org>: Aug 23 08:51AM -0700
Thank you for reaching out. I am out of the office until August 28, with
limited access to email.
If your matter is urgent and requires immediate attention please contact
fl...@climitigation.org or er...@climitigation.org.
For non-urgent matters, I will attend to your email as soon as I return. I
apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and appreciate your
understanding.
Best,
Laura
On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 17:51:14 +0200, CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com
- [EXT] Re: [CDR] Carbon Engineering and 'the moral hazard'
<http://#group_thread_0> - 1 Update
- Digest for CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 6
topics <http://#group_thread_1> - 1 Update
- Digest for CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com - 12 updates in 10
topics <http://#group_thread_2> - 1 Update
[EXT] Re: [CDR] Carbon Engineering and 'the moral hazard'
<http://groups.google.com/group/CarbonDioxideRemoval/t/297465c06367b8d7?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email>
Anton Alferness <an...@paradigmclimate.com>: Aug 23 07:58AM -0700
Perhaps.
Or maybe I'm delusional about my belief that people can and do change.
Back to top <http://#digest_top>
Digest for CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com - 25 updates in 6 topics
<http://groups.google.com/group/CarbonDioxideRemoval/t/fcbf90b11996f479?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email>
Laura Wasserson <la...@climitigation.org>: Aug 23 07:54AM -0700
Thank you for reaching out. I am out of the office until August 28, with
limited access to email.
If your matter is urgent and requires immediate attention please contact
fl...@climitigation.org or er...@climitigation.org.
For non-urgent matters, I will attend to your email as soon as I return. I
apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and appreciate your
understanding.
Best,
Laura
On Wed, 23 Aug 2023 16:53:49 +0200, CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com
- Carbon Engineering and 'the moral hazard' <http://#group_thread_0> - 13
Updates
- Improved net carbon budgets in the US Midwest through direct measured
impacts of enhanced weathering <http://#group_thread_1> - 2 Updates
- Carbon dioxide reduction by photosynthesis undetectable even during
phytoplankton blooms in two lakes <http://#group_thread_2> - 1 Update
- Seaweed biogeochemistry: Global assessment of C:N and C:P ratios and
implications for ocean afforestation <http://#group_thread_3> - 2 Updates
- 20 point plan <http://#group_thread_4> - 6 Updates
- Ebb Carbon at Sequim facility, Dept of Energy’s Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory (PNNL) <http://#group_thread_5> - 1 Update
Carbon Engineering and 'the moral hazard'
<
http://groups.google.com/group/CarbonDioxideRemoval/t/297465c06367b8d7?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email
Gregory Slater <ten...@gmail.com>: Aug 22 01:21PM -0700
All,
Maybe I am just bad at searching the site, but I haven't found much
discussion of the recently announced sale of David Keith's 'Carbon
Engineering' to Occidental Petroleum for ~$1.1 billion. This announcement
came only days after Biden announced hi intent to ask for ~$1.2 billion in
aid for two CDR demo plants in Texas and Louisiana. I suppose I should be
just grateful as hell that you can sell a pocket CDR test facility for a
billion dollars, but I don't trust Occidental's motives in doing this. If
selling a CDR company to big oil at this stage doesn't involve the specter
of 'moral hazard', then there's no such thing as a moral hazard (which is
constantly laid on SAI). Occidental is incentivized to put as much CO2 in
the atmosphere as possible so they can make even more money pulling it all
out. Gore even had a shocking quote from the Occidental CEO in his recent
TED talk (who knows if it was a deepfake).
Did I miss the lively debate over this sale? Send me a link please.
Thank you,
Greg Slater
Seth Miller <setha...@gmail.com>: Aug 22 03:33PM -0600
Greg, you didn’t miss anything.
I think the lessons here are that:
Oxy is 100% serious about going bit into DAC, using government funded
carbon credits in order to extend their existing oil business
This makes everyone in the CDR community so uncomfortable that they aren’t
celebrating this out loud
Peter Eisenberger wrestled with the uncomfortable part in another thread,
which everyone should totally read, but I’ll quote below with formatting
cleaned up slightly:
One cannot ask or get the developing world to stop using fossil fuels or
make their energy costs higher while their people do not have their basic
needs met
Even as shown in europe for the developed world stopping to use fossil
fuels is not feasible
That any industrial revolution has a long transition period - parts of the
world are still using wood
The energy industry is the only industry that has the experience and
capability to make the transition in the time needed
Acknowledging the above rather than arguing for stopping fossil fuel now
and villainizing the energy industry is needed to reach a global accord and
coordination needed to make the transition away from fossil fuels and a
natural resource based economy to a Renewable Energy and Materials Economy
happen as quickly as possible
Oxy’s decision to pay $1.1 billion for a company with no revenue, and whose
technology is still several years away from generating revenue, is bold. It
would be unthinkably risky if it did not also offer some hope of extending
Oxy's existing oil business. Oxy generates about $20B in profits each year,
so even if there is a small chance this purchase of forestalling regulation
or obsolescence, they should make the bet.
If nothing else, Oxy seems to be able to think rationally. Oxy has said
they are planning to build 100 metago/yr-ish scale DAC facilities globally
by 2035. I think the smart money right now is that they intend to follow
through. This is obviously contingent on global markets for carbon credits,
and Oxy can decide to reverse its investments later. But also, their
ambitions are entirely achievable. See Peter’s (4) above in particular.
Is 100 megaton-scale DAC plants bad? I think that yes, the US’s climate
credit policy gives some payout to people who don’t give a damn about
climate. I also can’t think of an incentive plan that doesn’t have some
perverse side effects, and yet we still incentivize and invest. It is very
early in 2023 to be saying that we know that this particular set of
incentives are bad, or good. Climate is a long game. It seems wrong to
judge an investment by its outcome today.
Oxy, being the cold-blooded, rational capitalists they are, is making a bet
that might not pay out, but will pay off well if it does. Maybe that last
bit is the lesson here. Yes, there is risk to the climate movement that the
bet in DAC will go totally sideways. But we are in a crisis. Our future
livelihood is threatened. In that context, isn’t it worth taking risk?
I think ambivalence and caution are justified, but it’s worthwhile to put
out an audible “yay!” here.
Seth
-------
Seth Miller, Ph.D.
www.linkedin.com/in/sethmiller2
Check my blog at: perspicacity.xyz
Peter Flynn <pcf...@ualberta.ca>: Aug 22 03:51PM -0600
The statement “this makes everyone in the CDR community so uncomfortable
that they aren’t celebrating…” is an overstatement.
Fossil fuels have conveyed staggering benefits to humanity, with late
recognition of a serious and terrible consequence not due to the use of
energy but rather to the end byproduct of that energy. If the byproduct
were to be fully dealt with, then at least one member of the CDR community,
me, is comfortable with ongoing use. I can envision a future in which
legacy emissions are captured and paid for by DAC primarily funded by those
societies that historically created the emissions, and in which ongoing
emissions are captured and paid for by DAC paid for by the user of the
fuel. If a fossil fuel is economic in the future with full offset….ok by
me. There is much suspicion of all energy producers, warranted in my
opinion way more for some than others. We are moving to sufficiently
accurate measurement and verification to know whether incremental emissions
are truly offset. I think our future is better assured if we focus on
results and not villains.
Peter
Peter Flynn, P. Eng., Ph. D.
Emeritus Professor and Poole Chair in Management for Engineers
Department of Mechanical Engineering
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
1 928 451 4455
peter...@ualberta.ca
*From:* carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <
carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> *On Behalf Of *Seth Miller
*Sent:* Tuesday, August 22, 2023 3:33 PM
*To:* Gregory Slater <ten...@gmail.com>
*Cc:* Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>
*Subject:* Re: [CDR] Carbon Engineering and 'the moral hazard'
Greg, you didn’t miss anything.
I think the lessons here are that:
1. Oxy is 100% serious about going bit into DAC, using government funded
carbon credits in order to extend their existing oil business
2. This makes everyone in the CDR community so uncomfortable that they
aren’t celebrating this out loud
Peter Eisenberger wrestled with the uncomfortable part in another thread,
which everyone should totally read, but I’ll quote below with formatting
cleaned up slightly:
1. One cannot ask or get the developing world to stop using fossil fuels
or make their energy costs higher while their people do not have their
basic needs met
2. Even as shown in europe for the developed world stopping to use
fossil fuels is not feasible
3. That any industrial revolution has a long transition period - parts
of the world are still using wood
4. The energy industry is the only industry that has the experience and
capability to make the transition in the time needed
5. Acknowledging the above rather than arguing for stopping fossil fuel
now and villainizing the energy industry is needed to reach a global accord
and coordination needed to make the transition away from fossil fuels and a
natural resource based economy to a Renewable Energy and Materials Economy
happen as quickly as possible
Oxy’s decision to pay $1.1 billion for a company with no revenue, and whose
technology is still several years away from generating revenue, is bold. It
would be unthinkably risky if it did not also offer some hope of extending
Oxy's existing oil business. Oxy generates about $20B in profits each year,
so even if there is a small chance this purchase of forestalling regulation
or obsolescence, they should make the bet.
If nothing else, Oxy seems to be able to think rationally. Oxy has said
they are planning to build 100 metago/yr-ish scale DAC facilities globally
by 2035. I think the smart money right now is that they intend to follow
through. This is obviously contingent on global markets for carbon credits,
and Oxy can decide to reverse its investments later. But also, their
ambitions are entirely achievable. See Peter’s (4) above in particular.
Is 100 megaton-scale DAC plants bad? I think that yes, the US’s climate
credit policy gives some payout to people who don’t give a damn about
climate. I also can’t think of an incentive plan that doesn’t have some
perverse side effects, and yet we still incentivize and invest. It is very
early in 2023 to be saying that we know that this particular set of
incentives are bad, or good. Climate is a long game. It seems wrong to
judge an investment by its outcome today.
Oxy, being the cold-blooded, rational capitalists they are, is making a bet
that might not pay out, but will pay off well if it does. Maybe that last
bit is the lesson here. Yes, there is risk to the climate movement that the
bet in DAC will go totally sideways. But we are in a crisis. Our future
livelihood is threatened. In that context, isn’t it worth taking risk?
I think ambivalence and caution are justified, but it’s worthwhile to put
out an audible “yay!” here.
Seth
-------
Seth Miller, Ph.D.
www.linkedin.com/in/sethmiller2
Check my blog at: perspicacity.xyz
On Aug 22, 2023, at 2:21 PM, Gregory Slater <ten...@gmail.com> wrote:
All,
Maybe I am just bad at searching the site, but I haven't found much
discussion of the recently announced sale of David Keith's 'Carbon
Engineering' to Occidental Petroleum for ~$1.1 billion. This announcement
came only days after Biden announced hi intent to ask for ~$1.2 billion in
aid for two CDR demo plants in Texas and Louisiana. I suppose I should be
just grateful as hell that you can sell a pocket CDR test facility for a
billion dollars, but I don't trust Occidental's motives in doing this. If
selling a CDR company to big oil at this stage doesn't involve the specter
of 'moral hazard', then there's no such thing as a moral hazard (which is
constantly laid on SAI). Occidental is incentivized to put as much CO2 in
the atmosphere as possible so they can make even more money pulling it all
out. Gore even had a shocking quote from the Occidental CEO in his recent
TED talk (who knows if it was a deepfake).
Did I miss the lively debate over this sale? Send me a link please.
Thank you,
Greg Slater
--
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 CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
.
--
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 CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/04B8E203-B172-4472-BE6E-CA4015959B54%40gmail.com
<
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/04B8E203-B172-4472-BE6E-CA4015959B54%40gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
.
Seth Miller <setha...@gmail.com>: Aug 22 04:02PM -0600
> The statement “this makes everyone in the CDR community so uncomfortable
that they aren’t celebrating…” is an overstatement.
This is fair!
I know that for me personally, I will piss off a lot of friends by cheering
for Oxy and CE and the amoral wheels of capitalism. Still, this should be
something of a watershed moment? I noticed the
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages