Re: [CDR] Digest for CarbonDioxideRemoval@googlegroups.com - 3 updates in 3 topics
16 views
Skip to first unread message
Laura Wasserson
Aug 23, 2023, 11:51:35 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 17:51:14 +0200, CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com wrote:
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.
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
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>
- 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
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/a76df987-03cf-4dd6-a4e8-20abc9f92254n%40googlegroups.com
<
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/a76df987-03cf-4dd6-a4e8-20abc9f92254n%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.
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 same silence that Greg did,
and I think he’s right to poke the list to see how everyone is processing
this.
-------
Seth Miller, Ph.D.
www.linkedin.com/in/sethmiller2
Check my blog at: perspicacity.xyz
Anton Alferness <an...@paradigmclimate.com>: Aug 22 04:01PM -0700
I think the majority of people are not celebrating due to the yuck factor.
Math and reality aside.
Dan Miller <d...@rodagroup.com>: Aug 22 07:28PM -0400
A few points:
1. I disagree that we need FF for a long time. We can ban ICE cars in 2030,
FF electricity in 2035 and almost all FF energy in 2040. Any small amount
of FF after that (and before!) would need to be offset with permanent CDR.
Note that this phase out of FF will save society trillions of dollars
because FF is the most expensive form of energy — by far — when all costs
are included, and still more expensive even when climate damage is
excluded. As we are learning today, the “external costs” of FF are real and
must be paid in Maui and around the world. If you want to help the
developing world, then give them renewable energy. FF are a curse for both
environmental and financial reasons in the developing world, draining their
resources to pay for a constant supply of FF.
2. This whole notion of a moral hazard for CDR assumes there will be no
serious action on climate and we will ask FF companies to “pretty please”
reduce the amount of product they supply. If we continue to choose to fail
then we will, well, fail. But if we choose to take serious action, then it
will not be up to FF companies to continue to produce deadly products by
greenwashing with CDR. Perhaps, instead, they will turn into real CDR
companies because they know for sure that they must ramp down production of
FF.
3. I’m concerned that we — climate activists — continue to nibble around
Laura Wasserson <la...@climitigation.org>: Aug 22 08:54AM -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 Tue, 22 Aug 2023 17:51:49 +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>
- Cutting global warming down to size by cooling the ocean surface down
to the preindustrial level in 226 years and maintaining that temperature
for millennia. <http://#group_thread_0> - 1 Update
- 20 point plan <http://#group_thread_1> - 2 Updates
- Full steam ahead: Ebb’s ocean carbon removal solution is up and
running at PNNL-Sequim <http://#group_thread_2> - 1 Update
- Ebb Carbon at Sequim facility, Dept of Energy’s Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory (PNNL) <http://#group_thread_3> - 1 Update
- WEEKLY SUMMARY (14 AUGUST-20 AUGUST 2023) <http://#group_thread_4> - 1
Update
- HPAC meeting with Chris Vivian on Ocean CDR: August 24, 4:30 PM EDT.
<http://#group_thread_5> - 1 Update
- Ecuador electorate hands double victory for CDR
<http://#group_thread_6> - 2 Updates
- Biological impact of ocean alkalinity enhancement of magnesium
hydroxide on marine microalgae using bioassays simulating ship-based
dispersion <http://#group_thread_7> - 1 Update
- Carbon dioxide reduction by photosynthesis undetectable even during
phytoplankton blooms in two lakes <http://#group_thread_8> - 1 Update
- Digest for CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com - 1 update in 1 topic
<http://#group_thread_9> - 1 Update
Cutting global warming down to size by cooling the ocean surface down to
the preindustrial level in 226 years and maintaining that temperature for
millennia.
<http://groups.google.com/group/CarbonDioxideRemoval/t/3df7943a375c4a3c?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email>
"Jim Baird" <jim....@gwmitigation.com>: Aug 22 08:30AM -0700
Chris I look forward to your presentation to the HPAC group on Thursday.
I would be interested to know how you explain how GESAMP ruled out
Thermodynamic Geoengineering on the basis of a scientific fairy tale per
the following.
Jim Baird
From: Ken Caldeira
Sent: June 23, 2023 5:27 PM
To: Jim Baird <jim....@gwmitigation.com>
Cc: Kevin Trenberth <tren...@ucar.edu>;
carbondiox...@googlegroups.com; Suzanne Reed <
csuzann...@gmail.com>; Ron Baiman <rpba...@gmail.com>; Renaud de
RICHTER <renaud.d...@gmail.com>; Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>;
Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>; Al Binger <newy...@gmail.com>;
JPAB...@stthomas.edu; david...@uchicago.edu; Douglas Grandt <
answer...@mac.com>
Subject: Re: [CDR] Cutting global warming down to size by cooling the ocean
surface down to the preindustrial level in 226 years and maintaining that
temperature for millennia.
Who knows?
Any perturbation large enough to have a substantive climate effect is also
likely to produce some unanticipated outcomes.
Agreed however that the simulations we have done may not be germane.
Nevertheless, if you are cooling the Earth from the ocean surface, that is
going to influence land-sea temperature contrasts which will have dynamical
effects.
A more concerning issue is that I for the past decade have been trying to
hire a good postdoc to investigate these sorts of issues in more detail
using a climate model, and I have been unable to attract an excellent
candidate who would like to do so (despite being able to attract good
postdocs to work on other topic areas).
Bright and highly motivated early career scientists apparently do not look
at evaluating ocean carbon and climate proposals as a good career move (or
they do not have the kind of mathematical skills and sensibility needed to
do the job well).
Best,
Ken
On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 4:57 PM Jim Baird <jim....@gwmitigation.com
<mailto:jim....@gwmitigation.com> > wrote:
Ken, my understanding of your experiment was you increased the background
vertical diffusivity in the top 1000 m of the water column to 60 cm2 s-1.
This is like the ultimate shaking of the pop bottled before you release the
lid. This would be a massive releasing of ocean dissolved CO2 into the
atmosphere. Little wonder then the surface temperature soon spiked.
Thermodynamic Geoengineering doesn’t move water. It only moves heat as the
latent heat of the working fluid. It is assumed the surface temperature
will be 1.8C the system is fully built out and it would decrease only
decrease only .008 degrees for the next 226 years.
Compare this to the 0.2C per year warming the top 5 meters of the ocean is
experiencing today with the climate experiment that is currently being
undertaken.
Whereas you upswelled 60 at 60 cm2 s-1, heat released at 1000 meters will
diffuse back to the surface at 1 cm/day to the bottom of the mixed layer
and 1 m/day through that layer thus ~ 226 years. After which the surface
would be at the preindustrial level which would only to have to be cooled
only .008C every year for the next 3000 years to compensate for the trapped
heat that is being converted to work.
IMHO the concerns that have been expressed about this have been overwrought
and the cloud implications are a red herring.
Jim
From: Kevin Trenberth
Sent: June 23, 2023 2:58 PM
To: Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegiescience.edu <mailto:
kcal...@carnegiescience.edu> >; Jim Baird <jim....@gwmitigation.com
<mailto:jim....@gwmitigation.com> >
Cc: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <mailto:
carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> ; Suzanne Reed <
csuzann...@gmail.com <mailto:csuzann...@gmail.com> >; Ron Baiman <
rpba...@gmail.com <mailto:rpba...@gmail.com> >; Renaud de RICHTER <
renaud.d...@gmail.com <mailto:renaud.d...@gmail.com> >; Robert
Chris <robert...@gmail.com <mailto:robert...@gmail.com> >; Tom Goreau
<gor...@globalcoral.org <mailto:gor...@globalcoral.org> >; Al Binger <
newy...@gmail.com <mailto:newy...@gmail.com> >; JPAB...@stthomas.edu
<mailto:JPAB...@stthomas.edu> ; david...@uchicago.edu <mailto:
david...@uchicago.edu> ; Douglas Grandt <answer...@mac.com <mailto:
answer...@mac.com> >
Subject: Re: [CDR] Cutting global warming down to size by cooling the ocean
surface down to the preindustrial level in 226 years and maintaining that
temperature for millennia.
Excellent point. Same with several other forms of geoengineering: fiddling
with clouds: the feedbacks and other changes are not accounted for. If you
brighten clouds in one area, it has impacts in surrounding areas.
Kevin
On 6/24/23 9:18 AM, Ken Caldeira wrote:
Not sure this is relevant to carbon dioxide removal, but we did a
simulation in a coupled carbon-climate atmosphere-ocean model in which the
tropical surface temperatures were cooled by mixing the heat deeper into
the ocean.
The result was, in the perturbation, that the cooler ocean surface caused
air to ascend over land and descend over the oceans, which blew away most
clouds over the ocean. The resulting change in albedo resulted in
additional warming.
One hundred years later, the planet was warmer than if the ocean pumping
did not occur.
I am not saying this cannot be made to work, and that our particular
scenario is in any way representative of other related scenarios, but
proposals should be examined in models, because what you think will happen
does not always happen.
On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 2:04 PM Jim Baird <jim....@gwmitigation.com
<mailto:jim....@gwmitigation.com> > wrote:
Apologies.
Doug Grandt pointed out the link is wrong. It should be:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QnX3HANrlo
Thanks
From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <mailto:
carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Jim Baird
Sent: June 23, 2023 12:21 PM
To: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <mailto:
carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> ; 'Suzanne Reed' <
csuzann...@gmail.com <mailto:csuzann...@gmail.com> >; 'Ron Baiman' <
rpba...@gmail.com <mailto:rpba...@gmail.com> >; 'Renaud de RICHTER' <
renaud.d...@gmail.com <mailto:renaud.d...@gmail.com> >; 'Robert
Chris' <robert...@gmail.com <mailto:robert...@gmail.com> >; 'Tom
Goreau' <gor...@globalcoral.org <mailto:gor...@globalcoral.org> >; 'Al
Binger' <newy...@gmail.com <mailto:newy...@gmail.com> >; 'Kevin
Trenberth' <tren...@ucar.edu <mailto:tren...@ucar.edu> >;
JPAB...@stthomas.edu <mailto:JPAB...@stthomas.edu> ;
david...@uchicago.edu <mailto:david...@uchicago.edu>
Subject: [CDR] Cutting global warming down to size by cooling the ocean
surface down to the preindustrial level in 226 years and maintaining that
temperature for millennia.
https://studio.youtube.com/video/0QnX3HANrlo
A target of zero degrees of warming from the preindustrial level is neither
ambition nor unachievable with an ocean heat focused climate policy.
To fail to immediately address the total Earth System Sensitivity is the
ultimate in procrastination, false economy and supreme disservice to future
generations.
Jim Baird
--
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/000e01d9a607%24d0ab00f0%24720102d0%24%40gwmitigation.com
<
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/000e01d9a607%24d0ab00f0%24720102d0%24%40gwmitigation.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/002001d9a616%2442b54e90%24c81febb0%24%40gwmitigation.com
<
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/002001d9a616%2442b54e90%24c81febb0%24%40gwmitigation.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
.
--
Kevin E Trenberth
Distinguished Scholar
National Center for Atmospheric Research
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/
Email: tren...@ucar.edu <mailto:tren...@ucar.edu> ph +64 27 771 4868
Honorary Academic, Department of Physics, Auckland University, NZ
Mail address:
127A Churchill Road, Rothesay Bay
Auckland 0630, New Zealand
Please see my new book: "The changing flow of energy through the climate
system"
Cambridge University Press.
Paperback 978-1-108-97246-8
https://www.amazon.com/Changing-Energy-Through-Climate-System/dp/1108972462/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=Trenberth
<
https://www.amazon.com/Changing-Energy-Through-Climate-System/dp/1108972462/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=Trenberth&qid=1639208299&s=books&sr=1-2>
&qid=1639208299&s=books&sr=1-2
Back to top <http://#digest_top>
20 point plan
<http://groups.google.com/group/CarbonDioxideRemoval/t/fd5503e1e11617f7?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email>
Roger Arnold <silver...@gmail.com>: Aug 21 11:30PM -0700
> I*f Michaux was right, oil production would be rapidly declining now
because of peak oil.*
Michaux's thesis is quite a bit more nuanced than that, Dan. He's a very
qualified mining engineer, and he's quite familiar with crustal abundances
and resource pyramids. His arguments have more to do with EROI and the cost
of mining infrastructure than with resource depletion. I'm not even sure it
makes sense to discuss his work in terms of whether or not he's "right".
His work is predicated on a set of assumptions, and he's pretty good about
spelling out what those assumptions are. He relies on data and numerical
analysis to project as best he can what is or isn't feasible, consistent
with those assumptions. He arrives at the conclusion that a "business as
usual" economy based on 100% renewable energy plus storage will not and
cannot fly.
One can certainly challenge the assumptions that underlie Michaux's
conclusions. In fact, I picture Michaux standing before a class of
prospective mining and materials engineering students at ANU and announcing
"Here's your assignment class. I've shown that the common assumptions on
which our governments have been basing their energy and climate policies
are hopelessly at odds with the results they're supposed to achieve.
Something will have to change. In two weeks, you will turn in papers
detailing what changes to assumptions and goals you think will be needed to
allow for a realist solution. Quantitative justification for changes must
be given; no hand-waving allowed. Collaborative efforts are permitted and
encouraged. Have fun."
On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 2:37:31 PM UTC-7 dan wrote:
Michael Hayes <electro...@gmail.com>: Aug 22 06:28AM -0700
Hello, Roger
How is this directly related to CDR?
Best Regards
Back to top <http://#digest_top>
Full steam ahead: Ebb’s ocean carbon removal solution is up and running at
PNNL-Sequim
<http://groups.google.com/group/CarbonDioxideRemoval/t/526d0f6519964c88?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email>
Geoengineering News <geoengine...@gmail.com>: Aug 22 03:33PM +0500
https://www.ebbcarbon.com/post/ebb-carbon-ocean-carbon-removal-solution-operational-at-pnnl-sequim
*By Ben Tarbell*
*21 August 2023*
At Ebb Carbon, our goal is to remove billions of tons of carbon dioxide
from the air while locally reducing ocean acidification. To accomplish
this, we have developed an ocean carbon dioxide removal (CDR) system that
takes a proven electrochemical technology and applies it to the defining
challenge of our time: climate change.
Today, I’m proud to share that Ebb Carbon is operating our first 100 ton
ocean CDR system at the DOE’s only marine lab, Pacific Northwest National
Lab (PNNL)-Sequim. We are fortunate to work alongside world-leading experts
in ocean health, modeling and biogeochemistry from PNNL, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NOAA’s Pacific Marine
Environmental Laboratory (PMEL), and the University of Washington’s
Cooperative Institute for Climate, Ocean and Ecosystem Studies (CICOES) and
the Salish Sea Modeling Center (SSMC).
[image: The view of Sequim Bay from the PNNL laboratory]
Our view of Sequim Bay from our location at PNNL
Building the scientific foundations for ocean carbon dioxide removal
Ebb will operate our system, which is roughly the size of a shipping
container, at PNNL-Sequim’s marine labs lab for at least two years. In the
lab, Ebb’s system processes seawater pumped in from Sequim Bay by passing
it through a series of membranes. These membranes act like a filter,
removing acid from the water. Once the acid is removed, the seawater can
absorb additional CO₂ from the air and store it as
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.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages