EPA Requests Grant Applications for methane capture

[Ken Caldeira]

My guess is that they are not thinking about capture of methane from air, but if someone has a good idea ...

********************************************************************************************************

  FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
  January 8, 2010

  EPA Requests Grant Applications to Fight Climate Change

  WASHINGTON – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today
  announced it is making up to $5 million in grants available to U.S.
  and international organizations to fund innovative, international
  methane reduction and use projects that cut global climate pollution.
  The grants will be issued through the Methane to Markets Partnership,
  a public-private partnership that reduces greenhouse gas (GHG)
  pollution by promoting the cost-effective, near-term recovery and use
  of methane, a GHG that is more than 20 times more potent than carbon
  dioxide.

  Methane capture and use projects supported by the partnership through
  grants and other means are currently reducing emissions by more than
  27.3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent annually –
  equivalent to the annual emissions from 5 million passenger vehicles.

  Non-profit or government organizations in any country may apply for
  grant funding, but projects should take place in the following
  Methane to Markets Partner countries: Argentina, Brazil, Chile,
  China, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Georgia, India,
  Kazakhstan, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Mongolia, Nigeria, Pakistan,
  Philippines, Poland, Russia, Thailand, Ukraine, and Vietnam.  If an
  organization wishes to submit an application for a project in a
  developing country or a country with an economy in transition that is
  not listed above, the country must first apply to the Methane to
  Markets Partnership before the project can be considered for funding.

  Grant proposals should support feasibility studies, technology
  transfer, deployment of technology, training, methane emissions
  inventories, and other activities that promote methane capture and
  use.  The agency expects to award up to 35 cooperative assistance
  agreements ranging from approximately $100,000 to $750,000.

  Proposals are due by April 15, 2010, at 1:00 p.m. EST.  EPA estimates
  that awards would be made at the end of 2010.

  Since the launch of the partnership in 2004, EPA has provided almost
  $13 million for nearly 70 grants to build capacity and promote
  international capture and use of methane. This work will be
  highlighted in 2010 when EPA, the Government of India and the
  Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry host the 2nd
  Methane to Markets Partnership Expo on March 2-5, 2010 in Delhi,
  India. The expo will bring together approximately 1,000 partners and
  methane experts from around the world to showcase project
  opportunities and technologies related to the capture and use of
  methane.


  More grant information:
  http://www.epa.gov/methanetomarkets/grants.htm

  R006

CONTACT:
  Dave Ryan (News Media Only)
  Ryan...@epa.gov
  202-564-7827
  202-564-4355
  Technical grants questions: Henry Ferland, 202-343-9330

[Andrew Lockley]

Should anyone wish to use, test or work up proposals in the attached paper for this grant cycle, they are more than welcome to do so. It was submitted yesterday to ASL.

I have applied to present it in Delhi, but have unfortunately missed the deadline, so acceptance is unlikely.

Corrections and comments on the paper are welcome.

A

2010/1/31 Ken Caldeira <kcal...@gmail.com>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[oli...@nmt.edu]

Dear Group,

Some might find the follow abstract and conclusion interesting.

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 37, L02704, doi:10.1029/2009GL041662, 2010

Changing links between South Asian summer monsoon circulation and tropospheric land-sea thermal contrasts under a warming scenario

Ying Sun and Yihui Ding

National Climate Center, China Meteorological Administration,
Beijing, China

Aiguo Dai

National Center for Atmospheric Research,
Boulder, Colorado, USA

Abstract

[1]   Forced with increased greenhouse gases, the South Asian summer monsoon (SASM) circulation weakens in climate models, which appears inconsistent with the projected increases in near-surface land-sea thermal contrasts during the 21st century. Our analysis shows that the SASM intensity positively correlates with the land-sea thermal contrast in both the lower- and upper-troposphere before year 2000; thereafter a reduced upper-tropospheric thermal contrast leads to a weakened SASM circulation, despite an increasing lower-tropospheric thermal contrast. The decrease in the upper-tropospheric thermal contrast mainly results from enhanced upper-tropospheric warming over the tropical Indian Ocean due to increased latent heating. The results suggest a crucial role of enhanced tropical convection in the weakening of SASM circulation and a weak influence of lower-tropospheric thermal contrast on the SASM under global warming. They also imply a less important role of near-surface processes over the Tibetan Plateau in the long-term SASM change during the 21st century.

Last paragraph from th conclusion,
" Because the enhanced upper-tropospheric warming results primarily from increased latent heating from tropical convection, this study implies a crucial role of increased water vapor in SASM’s response to increased GHGs. Furthermore, despite the weakened monsoon winds, summer monsoon precipitation in South Asia still increases in most GCMs because of the increased water vapor content and convergence over the SASM region [e.g., Ueda et al., 2006]. Therefore, in the selected seven AR4 models both the increased monsoon precipitation and the decreased monsoon winds in South Asia are mainly caused by the increased water vapor and enhanced tropical convection in a GHG-induced warmer climate."

Received 4 November 2009; revised 2 December 2009; accepted 15 December 2009; published 21 January 2010.

Sincerely,

Oliver Wingenter

Ken Caldeira wrote:

[Dan Whaley]

I give you big points for even trying to put together a treatment of this issue, but really take an issue with much of the analysis.

One of the biggest problems I have with many solutions is the requirement for permanent infrastructure at global scale... i.e. millions of air capture devices, or ocean pipes, or tens of thousands of miles of additional CO2 capture pipeline, each of which need to be built, installed, serviced--causing impacts on land use, driving significant cost, in addition to the aesthetics implications (including the potential for it just to end up as abandoned junk).   Perhaps there are strong arguments as to why for specific techniques, the infrastructure makes sense or is justified based on efficacy-- but if you're ranking ideas, somehow this logic needs to come out in a methodology which is laid out for all to see and consider.   Ocean pipes for instance (to pick on one most of us would agree about) are frankly just not practical... and there should be a way to capture the analysis of why this is so.  I'm not sure the simplistic ranking systems out there so far have done a very good job at this.

For instance, you rank "bubble capture" as a 4--this is your highest score.  It should be the standout idea.  But doesn't this imply a massive net of pipes across the tundra (or the continental shelf) to catch the millions of places where methane bubbles-- or might in the future?   A pipe (or funnel if you like) for every bubble essentially.  Perhaps I misread you.   Is this actually a practical concept?  How would you defend this?

It seems like there should be a category for "large scale, permanent infrastructure required" or "infrastructure per ton avoided" (different than cost-- but probably closely linked) and perhaps one for "aesthetics" as well.  Perhaps I am biased, but in my opinion these should be not only included, but over-weighted. 

Also, the category "environmental" seems too loose.  What exactly are "environmental impacts" and how does one judge the severity of them?  I see no rhyme or reason here... Mining clathrates, which would be quite disruptive to the benthic environment rates a 0, adding methylotrophs... i.e. the widespread introduction of non-native microorganisms ranks even better, as a 1??  (Of all the historical interventions, the ones that have backfired the worst have involved the introduction of new organisms).  Electrical ignition by sparking is a 0, but using air-burst incendiary munitions at altitude gets a favorable 1?   What about the birds?

Also.... SRM for methane is a "pre-emptive" strategy, no?  shouldn't it be placed with the rest of them, and judged by its practical ability to avoid future methane emissions relative to other techniques?

On your scale SRM geoengineering gets a -2...   but to me, this general approach (and one needs to specify which technique by the way) clearly has emerged as one of the only practical, large scale, fast acting techniques, which requires no built environment, no large scale infrastructure.   Clearly many questions remain-- some, perhaps Alan, would argue against it--but in terms of a rough ranking, it should come out near the top. You give it a -1 for CCS... but the "net" prevention of carbon is what should be measured.  While SRM doesn't address methane specifically, it still probably deserves to outrank nearly everything else in terms of its ability to pre-empt.

100 years from now, what will have avoided more methane:  keeping the arctic colder, or piping every bubble?

I would be interested to see where Coal Mine Methane mitigation would fit in your chart... technically, most would probably argue that it's emissions reduction, not "capture from nature" and thus not geoengineering... but still, it should probably be off the richter scale in any measure of cost, practicality, speed to deploy, infrastructure required per ton avoided, aesthetic impact and likely zero impacts.  It might be a good ranking test.

I appreciate your attempt to put your hands around this-- but (IMHO of course)  the ranking really needs some work.  If it helps, I felt the same about the Royal Society effort... :)

Maybe a paragraph on each ranking category explaining your methodology/philosophy would be appropriate.

Thanks for listening,

Dan

[Andrew Lockley]

Thanks Dan,

Thanks for your helpful comments. I reattach the paper for convenience. 

I'd welcome your input on a possible new method for evaluation.  One of the most obvious problems is that there's no weighting system as such (or rather that all factors are weighted equally).  Maybe it would be better to remove the weighting?  Stephen Salter also criticised the ranking system, so maybe it's time to chuck it out entirely, and replace with simple comments without attempting to quantify them.

FYI bubble capture doesn't necessitate capture pipework.  The bubble diffusers should work well in principle, and the biggest potential problem is that they'll get blocked up with algae or detritus.  I don't see them as being particularly disruptive to the lake ecosystem, any more than an old log would be.  They can just sit there quietly converting big bubbles to little bubbles, or directly to dissolved gas. There would be a device for capturing each concentrated streams of bubbles, which only emanate for certain parts of the lake or sea, and it's certainly not the case that every bubble would have its own funnel.  FYI I envisage the funnels being approx 0.5m - 4m diameter, depending on their position and the ebulliation they're dealing with.

I agree that most systems would require significant infrastructure.  For this reason, one of my personal favourites is the NOx idea, as it essentially 'hunts' the methane.  It didn't come out too well on the scoring, though.  I'd welcome your comments as to whether that's a failure of the ranking system or the idea.

Maybe the costs should be re-labelled capital cost and the energy cost re-labelled operating cost?  That might be more helpful.   We know that renewable energy is available on a large scale, so future energy availability shouldn't be a major limitation.

May I ask for further input on how you would rank or further classify the environmental problems? Perhaps categories including ecosystem, aesthetic, risk factors, human impact, etc could be used?  This gets very complex, though, and assessing each idea consistently and in detail becomes very difficult.  To address your specific point, munitions are benign as they are air-burst, whereas electric ignition is ground burst and potentially harmful to the local environment.  Toasted fox, anyone? :-)

Where SRM falls down is that it's only a sticking-plaster.  If I was comparing carbon air-capture, I would have ranked it far higher.  If we use SRM to stabilise methane, we'll use it indefinitely.  It only stores the carbon in it's existing unstable and dangerous methane form, and even a short disruption to its availability could trigger a massive methane release.

I'd expect coal mine methane remediation to come out high.  Here's a rough assessment:

Cost 1 - concentrated sources enables treatment with minimal plant.

Energy 1 - power generation possible

Efficacy 1 - proven effective

Development 1 - already available and installed

Environmental 1 - no major impacts

CCS 0 - semi-diffuse stream

Total 5 - highest score of all.

Please feel free to send in any further comments.

Thanks!

A

[Dan Whaley]

I think pricing the cost of solutions based on the future assumption of cheap and abundant renewable energy is a little flip.  The decisions needed to be made are presumably in the world of today.  The cost of solutions should be based on today's world.  Otherwise, why bother doing the analysis now-- just put it off twenty years when everything we know will be completely different anyway.

Infrastructure is more than capital cost.  For ocean pipes, it creates a logistical problem that cannot easily be overcome by throwing money or resources at it.  For other solutions, the considerations are different.  There are direct costs (materials and fabrication), operating costs (energy and reagents), time, complexity and serviceability, aesthetics, etc.   I think you should remove the ranking and simply provide a narrative.  I think the net appraisal for each one has to be done more thoughtfully with attention to its specifics.

Your comment that SRM gets a thumbs down because it stores carbon in its current "unstable and dangerous methane form" got a laugh out of me.  Are you frigging kidding?  Do we have a choice?  If we begin to seriously tip towards its release, no amount of bubble wizardry, incendiary bombs or fancy chemistry will ever be enough. 

The NOx idea?  You're going to have to lead me through this.... what is the LCA of this concept?  Where do the inputs and outputs come from.   Whenever anyone suggests we're going to create a giant mechanical factory to re-structure global atmospheric chemistry, I somehow find myself oddly skeptical.

D

[Andrew Lockley]

Thanks Dan.

I don't fully agree with all you've written, and I'll set out why.

As I said before, I'm worried by SRM.  Any failure of the technology could lead to sudden methane excursions.  CO2 air-capture does not have this issue.

These methane technologies would, in many cases, be available as a standby in the event of future excursions over the next 50 years.  Assuming large renewable capacity by this time does not seem unreasonable.

I'm not sure I fully understand your concerns regarding logistics of ocean pipes.  Could you be more specific about the problem you expect?

I think the rankings may indeed be unhelpful, and I'd be interested to hear other views on whether they should be removed, rather than revised.

As regards the NOx idea, I don't understand what you mean by LCA.  The reference for this approach is: 
Wild, O.; Prather, M. J.; Akimoto, H. (2001). "Indirect long‐term global radiative cooling from NOxEmissions". Geophysical Research Letters 28: 1719.doi:10.1029/2000GL012573.   

I really hope you can continue to comment on this draft paper, as your feedback is very helpful.

Thanks!

A

[Dan Whaley]

1- On the "sudden failure" charge against SRM: Ken uses the dialysis
analogy... which is reasonable on the first order. i.e. clearly just
because a mitigation might fail, or access to the mitigation might
cease, doesn't mean one shouldn't pursue it in the first place.
Possibly the second order charge, i.e. that the "whiplash" effect
might be worse than doing nothing, is legitimate, but probably needs
thoughtful analysis. And is the whiplash of something failing in one
year, worse than the whiplash we're already encountering over 50
years. Also-- the earth experiences "whiplash" every time a volcano
goes off, and then again when the particles come out of the
atmosphere. So clearly whiplash itself isn't going to kill us. If a
volcano goes off while we're in active mitigation, then we suspend
operations partially or completely, etc..

2- Besides, I just don't see the technology "failing". i.e. in that
it might work effectively for a period of time and then somehow we
might not be able to perform it. The only case i can see this
likelihood is in the event that our world returns to some kind of
feudal state-- i.e. collapse. (a reasonably high probability, but in
which case we've all got bigger problems.) But if we're able to
succeed with some method of delivery, such that it "works" (i.e.
global temperatures begin to fall), isn't it likely that we'd be able
to continue what amounts to a pretty low-tech operation into the
future? What is the imagined scenario in which we would not? This is
stipulated, but I don't think defensible. In the movie "Contact" one
unit fails, but we built a second one. It seems reasonable to me that
we would have duplicate or triplicate systems, or even a fully
distributed infrastructure if this was indeed essential for humanity.

3- Your alternative suggestion seems to be, let the methane be
released, we'll capture it. I think this is naive, and essentially
impossible. What is going to be your % effectiveness at capturing
what amounts to trillions of tons of CO2 leaking out from every pore
of the previously frozen north? Not 100%, and probably not even 10%.
But even if by benefit of some extraordinary and (currently unknown
technique) you're somehow 80% effective, we're still pushed way into
the red.

4- Ocean pipes. Assuming the basic technology works-- i.e. that you
can tune the length of the tube to select for more nutrient than the
CO2 you're also bringing up from depth, which the evidence says you
probably can't-- you would still need 10s of thousands--probably
more-- of these units deployed globally. These would either drift
lagrangian stye-- in which case they would tend to accumulate, and
would need to be redeployed-- or as phil kithil suggests, they would
need to be moored and guy-wired together under the sea such that they
maintain adequate distance from each other. This is such a far-
fetched notion as to be essentially preposterous. How would fishing
operations happen with so many fixed devices, what about fouling,
serviceability? What about current shear across the depth of them,
etc etc. Dave Karl and Ricardo Letelier's recent tests were
admirable but revealed a host of issues-- and they were really only
interested in their ability to produce localized phytoplankton blooms
which could be more easily studied for their biological properties.
So, not only does the technology most likely fail on a net carbon
reduction basis, but it most likely fails on a practical and
operational basis as well-- not to mention the unknown effects of
influencing ocean mixing and temperature on that scale. I have yet to
see any thoughtful engineering proposals to the contrary. Just a lot
of arm waving.

5- LCA means Life Cycle Assessment or Analysis. Look it up. It's
become quite sophisticated, with open source input-output tables for
all kinds of manufactured goods and materials available from many
places. It is part of the design requirement for any mature carbon
technology, eg. under the most basic UNFCCC methodological
submission. Simply, it means you have to account for the energy,
carbon, water and overall cost etc. from the full lifecycle process of
all materials, fabrication, installation, operation, servicing,
consumables, water, carbon, and eventual recycling, etc. in order to
demonstrate that what you're doing is any better than the baseline
case (i.e. doing nothing).

Cheers,

Dan

On Feb 3, 1:11 am, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks Dan.
>
> I don't fully agree with all you've written, and I'll set out why.
>
> As I said before, I'm worried by SRM.  Any failure of the technology could
> lead to sudden methane excursions.  CO2 air-capture does not have this
> issue.
>
> These methane technologies would, in many cases, be available as a standby
> in the event of future excursions over the next 50 years.  Assuming large
> renewable capacity by this time does not seem unreasonable.
>
> I'm not sure I fully understand your concerns regarding logistics of ocean
> pipes.  Could you be more specific about the problem you expect?
>
> I think the rankings may indeed be unhelpful, and I'd be interested to hear
> other views on whether they should be removed, rather than revised.
>
> As regards the NOx idea, I don't understand what you mean by LCA.  The
> reference for this approach is:
> Wild, O.; Prather, M. J.; Akimoto, H. (2001). "Indirect long‐term global

> radiative cooling from NOxEmissions". *Geophysical Research Letters* *28*:
> 1719.doi <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier>:
> 10.1029/2000GL012573 <http://dx.doi.org/10.1029%2F2000GL012573>.
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Cite_doi/10.1029.2...>

>
> I really hope you can continue to comment on this draft paper, as your
> feedback is very helpful.
>
> Thanks!
>
> A
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Andrew Lockley]

Hi,

Thanks for your further comments.  I'd like to address each issue briefly, but first I'd like to say that I've withdrawn my rubbish rankings from the paper as everyone hated them, including me.

1,2.  I support SRM, but I suggest that we can't rely exclusively on a technology that may be withdrawn at any time.  We need a backup plan for methane.

3. If we can mine unstable methane instead of stable coal, use it for power, (and then bung the CO2 in a hole) then Bravo!  Let's just hope it works....

4. A relatively small number of pipes at strategic locations would be able to deal with local methane excursions.  It's not an approach which needs global deployment.  Think scalpel, not axe.  The idea is  to downwell oxygen-rich, methane-poor water, together with some nutrients, down to a useful depth.  In locations such as the anoxic layers of the Black sea, this could be v. useful.

5. I agree LCA would be necessary - and am familiar with the concept (just not the acronym :-) )

Thanks again

A