Re: [geo] Stopping the Flood: Could We Use Targeted Geoengineering to Mitigate Sea Level Rise?

12 views
Skip to first unread message

Peter Eisenberger

unread,
Aug 5, 2018, 4:30:39 PM8/5/18
to Andrew Lockley, geoengineering, Carbon Dioxide Removal
I can tell you that there is a major change going on with reapect to negative emissions and DAC in particular,. After years of neglect all the major players 
are showing alot of interest in negative emissions and DAC in particular. This spans the large petro chemical companies , the goovernments and international efforts - I do not have the time to document this for you so 
you can ignore the input but neverthe less it is happening and the change is dramatic. I think as the world takes NETs more seriously a quesion will emerge for the SRM supporters. Again for the record I support research on SRM but 
oppose using the possible failure of NETS as the basis for the effort. The fact is that all that is needed is the decsion to do it,  do NET with DAC playing a big role. I am optimisitic that the academy study that is coming out will 
provide an additional strong impetus for getting together and doing NET. I hope all the very talented and positively motivated geoengineering community will throw their support behind 
a strong global effort for NET and adopt the factually correct perspective that if we develop a global consencus and work together we can get this done, eg limit the time we spend in the overshoot CO2 condition.  

On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 2:08 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew....@gmail.com> wrote:
Stopping the Flood: Could We Use Targeted Geoengineering to
Mitigate Sea Level Rise?
Michael J. Wolovick1
and John C. Moore2,3
1Atmosphere and Ocean Sciences Program, Department of Geosciences, Princeton University, GFDL, 201 Forrestal Road,
Princeton, NJ 08540, USA
2College of Global Change and Earth System Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China
3Arctic Centre, University of Lapland, Finland
Correspondence: M.J. Wolovick (wolo...@princeton.edu)
Abstract. The Marine Ice Sheet Instability (MISI) is a dynamic feedback that can cause an ice sheet to enter a runaway collapse.
Thwaites Glacier, West Antarctica, is the largest individual source of future sea level rise and may have already entered the
MISI. Here, we use a suite of coupled ice–ocean flowband simulations to explore whether targeted geoengineering using an
artificial sill or artificial ice rises could counter a collapse. Successful interventions occur when the floating ice shelf regrounds
5 on the pinning points, increasing buttressing and reducing ice flux across the grounding line. Regrounding is more likely with a
continuous sill that is able to block warm water transport to the grounding line. The smallest design we consider is comparable
in scale to existing civil engineering projects but has only a 30% success rate, while larger designs are more effective. There
are multiple possible routes forward to improve upon the designs that we considered, and with decades or more to research
designs it is plausible that the scientific community could come up with a plan that was both effective and achievable. While
10 reducing emissions remains the short-term priority for minimizing the effects of climate change, in the long run humanity may
need to develop contingency plans to deal with an ice sheet collapse.

--
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+unsubscribe@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.



--
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.

Michael MacCracken

unread,
Aug 5, 2018, 9:31:07 PM8/5/18
to peter.ei...@gmail.com, Andrew Lockley, geoengineering, Carbon Dioxide Removal

In that we are already in an overshoot situation given the objective of the UNFCCC and we want to be in overshoot the least amount of time possible given the acceleration of loss of ice sheet mass and increase in extreme weather and precipitation, I would hope all would also agree that it is essential to be working toward early, gradual deployment of climate intervention approaches  to push warming back down toward less than 0.5 C as soon as possible, with DAC, in addition to aggressive mitigation, being a vital component of an envisioned exit strategy to be scaled up as quickly as practicable.

"The fact is that all that is needed is the decision to do it....I [too] would hope all the very talented and positively motivated geoengineering community will throw their support behind a strong global effort .."

Peter E--In my view, there is also the need to avoid very serious impacts that are building now, so very early forcing down of the temperature as well as dealing with the higher CO2 concentration over the time it will take to build up and do this in the manner that you focus on.

Mike

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.

Andrew Lockley

unread,
Aug 6, 2018, 3:34:01 AM8/6/18
to Mike MacCracken, Peter Eisenberger, geoengineering, Carbon Dioxide Removal
Like any successful emergent technology, DAC will probably scale through high-cost edge-case uses. Initially, nobody tried to make mobile phones affordable for African cattle farmers, they tried to make them affordable for rich Western businessmen.

You don't need high volumes initially, to start seeing major costs reductions. The learning curve is usually dependent on volume doubling - so rapid proportional growth from a low base is sufficient. 

It's often forgotten that DAC costs are hugely dependent on energy costs. These will fall rapidly, as both solar and batteries have their own experience curve effects. 

Andrew 

PS if anyone has decent cost estimates for mid century solar, let me know. Module costs are falling reliably, but it's hard to project the impact on industrial or domestic electricity costs, as solar modules are only one part of the costs structure. 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
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 "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
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 post to this group, send email to CarbonDiox...@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/0f4ed3f1-b570-466a-c2bb-7eb5b028c484%40comcast.net.

Peter Eisenberger

unread,
Aug 6, 2018, 4:54:25 AM8/6/18
to Andrew Lockley, Mike MacCracken, geoengineering, Carbon Dioxide Removal
 I agree completely and more generally wehave now witnessed many examples of new emergent technolgies reaching scale by following the recipe described
by Andcrew that we should be able to count on it ,consider it a part of the human innovation process with leerning by doing the usual driver. However as Andrew indicates 
when in a transition in the industrial ecology (eg sources of energy new processses like DAC and new manufacturing capability , robotics one has a second driver - the benefit 
of other advances on ea  

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.



--
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 "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.

--
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+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to CarbonDioxideRemoval@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/0f4ed3f1-b570-466a-c2bb-7eb5b028c484%40comcast.net.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Peter Eisenberger

unread,
Aug 6, 2018, 5:00:23 AM8/6/18
to Andrew Lockley, Mike MacCracken, geoengineering, Carbon Dioxide Removal
previous left early 

On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 1:54 AM, Peter Eisenberger <peter.ei...@gmail.com> wrote:
 I agree completely and more generally wehave now witnessed many examples of new emergent technolgies reaching scale by following the recipe described
by Andcrew that we should be able to count on it ,consider it a part of the human innovation process with leerning by doing the usual driver. However as Andrew indicates 
when in a transition in the industrial ecology (eg sources of energy new processses like DAC and new manufacturing capability , robotics one has a second driver - the benefit 
of other advances . So as Andrew suggesred DAC will benefit greatly from reduced energy costs . If Shells prediction of 1 cts per kmhr solar were to be realized the cost of DAC will be under
$25 per tonne instead of under $50 per tonne and if robotic manufacting nt to say installation becomes lower cost it is possible that $10 per tonne DAC can be achieved. 
This is in fact no more remarkable than 1 cts per kwhr solar 
 

To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.



--
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 "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.

--
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+unsubscrib...@googlegroups.com.



--
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.

Peter Eisenberger

unread,
Aug 6, 2018, 5:41:54 AM8/6/18
to Steve Rayner, Andrew Lockley, Mike MacCracken, geoengineering, Carbon Dioxide Removal
Steve 

With all due respect one needs to seperate out the process and impact of learning by doing on costs  for things we end up doing and the many things that 
kill new ideas before we try to do them at large scale. My main point is that we need to come together as a community concerned about a real solution and decide 
what are the core technologies one needs to address the challenges we face and then do them ,being confident when we do them we will drive their costs way down .

My contention is that solar energy and controlling the carbon cycle by DAC are two such core capabilities and we should all agree to support doing them knowing that the costs 
will come way down . I personally estimated over 30 years ago  on the basis of the cost of materials ( the learning curve limit for large scale units where the nth plus 1 unit manufacturing costs approach the material costs )
that  the learning curve limit for concentrated solar thermal was 1cts per kwhr . Now Shell agrees with that assessment. I can do the same for DAC and come to $10 per tonne . So I do beleive the only barrier we have for both those core capabilities is the decision to do them -commit the human and financial resources . All this wringing of hands that DAC will be too costly is completely misquided . As the new US academy study will assert $10 per tonne DAC is feasible. We should all 
come together and do it . Of course we need to do other things but they in turn will become easier as the new lower cost core capabilities are achieved. 
With best regards,
Peter 

On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 2:18 AM, Steve Rayner <steve....@insis.ox.ac.uk> wrote:

Gents

 

Permit me a precautionary note. The Royal Society Report noted, subsequently confirmed by the Climate Geoengineering Governance Project, that all of the cost estimates for geoengineering technologies were overdetermined by the input assumptions ( http://www.geoengineering-governance-research.org/perch/resources/workingpaper13mackerroncostsandeconomicsofgeoengineering.pdf ). CGG also noted that project costs are almost invariably subject to the phenomenon of “appraisal optimism”. Furthermore, historical generalisations, S-curves, etc. are based on innovations that made it and are simply patterns. There is no inevitability that any technology will follow such a path, indeed, most patents are death certificates.

 

I’m not trying to be pessimistic, just urging a little caution.

 

Best

 

Steve Rayner

James Martin Professor of Science & Civilisation

Institute for Science, Innovation & Society

Professorial Fellow, Keble College

University of Oxford

64 Banbury Road

Oxford, OX2 6PN

T: +44 (0)1865 288938

E: steve....@insis.ox.ac.uk

 

 

previous left early 

 

--

To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.



 

--

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 "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.

 

--

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+unsub...@googlegroups.com.



 

--

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.



 

--

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 "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.

Andrew Lockley

unread,
Aug 6, 2018, 5:44:46 AM8/6/18
to David Sevier, Peter Eisenberger, geoengineering, Carbon Dioxide Removal
Making glaciers stick to the bedrock would, at first glance, seem to be a great way to rebuild ice caps/sheets. If flow from eg PIG could be blocked/slowed, that would have a significant effect on the ice above. A potentially risk is of catastrophic failure - if a CO2 based glacier suddenly snaps off, will it rebind - or will it just dump the whole ice sheet into the ocean?

A

On Mon, 6 Aug 2018, 10:39 David Sevier, <david....@carbon-cycle.co.uk> wrote:

It might be possible to change the flow dynamics of glaciers forming carbon dioxide clathrates at the bottom of the glacier by carbon dioxide injection under specific conditions. Carbon dioxide clathrates melt at 80C  which is above the temperature of the glacial melt water. The clathrates require energy input to reverse back to water and carbon dioxide. Klaus and I looked at storing CO2 in glaciers a number of years ago. We were thinking about capturing CO2 from the air and sticking it in the glaciers. Storing CO2 in glaciers could be a very large CO2 store if done correctly and in the right place. I talked to number of glacier experts at the time who made the connection that done right, the formed clathrates which are heavier than ice would migrate to the bottom of the glacier and act to stick the glacier to the bedrock. They mused that this would change the flow dynamics of the glacier but as we did not do further work on storing CO2 in glaciers, no one looked at this properly.  It would probably work to hold back the glacier and could be used to store quite a lot of CO2 but only for time frames below 10,000 years (this said, some ices of the Eastern Antarctica Glacier are over 1 million years old). I would point out that without proper modelling, this is speculation at best. An individual glacier system would have to be modelled to get a more realistic idea if this would work or not. It is possible that sticking the bottom of the glacier to the bed rock could have unforeseen and worse impacts than doing nothing.

 

 

David Sevier

Carbon Cycle Limited

248 Sutton Common Road

Sutton, Surrey SM3 9PW

England

Tel 44 (0)208 288 0128

Fax 44 (0)208-288 0129

www.carbon-cycle.co.uk

 

This email is private and confidential

 

 

 

 

Bruce Parker

unread,
Aug 6, 2018, 10:05:27 AM8/6/18
to Peter Eisenberger, Steve Rayner, Andrew Lockley, Mike MacCracken, geoengineering, Carbon Dioxide Removal

Peter-

 

Could you lay out a cost curve for DAC - costs now a "guestimate" of the year it reaches $10/ton  (which I assume is per ton CO2, or about $35/ton C)?  It would also be helpful to have an estimates for (1) kWh/ton CO2 for DAC and (2) costs (and kWh) to compress/sequester/store a ton of CO2.

 

Thanks!

 

Bruce Paker

 

From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com [mailto:carbondiox...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Peter Eisenberger
Sent: Monday, August 6, 2018 5:42 AM
To: Steve Rayner
Cc: Andrew Lockley; Mike MacCracken; geoengineering; Carbon Dioxide Removal
Subject: Re: [CDR] Re: [geo] Stopping the Flood: Could We Use Targeted Geoengineering to Mitigate Sea Level Rise?

 

Steve 

 

previous left early 

 

--

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.



 

--

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 "geoengineering" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.

 

--

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 post to this group, send email to CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com.



 

--

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.



 

--

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 "geoengineering" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.



 

--

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.
To post to this group, send email to CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com.

image001.jpg

Jim Baird

unread,
Aug 6, 2018, 11:22:02 AM8/6/18
to Andrew Lockley, Mike MacCracken, Peter Eisenberger, geoengineering, Carbon Dioxide Removal

“DAC costs are hugely dependent on energy costs”.

 

The following Perez diagram shows OTEC is the third largest renewable energy source. The paper Greg Rau and I recently published estimates NEOTEC can produce 25 terawatts of power a year, at the low end of wind, while directly capturing CO2.

 

The World Coal Association estimates there are 150 years worth of coal.

 

OTEC should be able to produce 25 terawatts for the next 3,250 years and 7 terawatts thereafter in perpetuity.

 

The difference is, for 3,250 year OTEC will be operating off and converting the excess heat of warming in the oceans to productive work.   

 

 

 

 

Jim Baird

image001.png

Peter Eisenberger

unread,
Aug 6, 2018, 1:55:56 PM8/6/18
to Jim Baird, Andrew Lockley, Mike MacCracken, geoengineering, Carbon Dioxide Removal
Jim 
I cannot follow what you wrote but DAC costs are roughly equal between capital and opex (energy) so even if energy costs decrease to zero that would only create a factor of two diference. in total costs
Peter 
  

On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 8:21 AM, Jim Baird <jim....@gwmitigation.com> wrote:

“DAC costs are hugely dependent on energy costs”.

 

The following Perez diagram shows OTEC is the third largest renewable energy source. The paper Greg Rau and I recently published estimates NEOTEC can produce 25 terawatts of power a year, at the low end of wind, while directly capturing CO2.

 

The World Coal Association estimates there are 150 years worth of coal.

 

OTEC should be able to produce 25 terawatts for the next 3,250 years and 7 terawatts thereafter in perpetuity.

 

The difference is, for 3,250 year OTEC will be operating off and converting the excess heat of warming in the oceans to productive work.   

 

 

 

 

Jim Baird

--

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.



 

--

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 "geoengineering" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.

--
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+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to CarbonDioxideRemoval@googlegroups.com.

--
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+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to CarbonDioxideRemoval@googlegroups.com.
image001.png

Jim Baird

unread,
Aug 6, 2018, 2:50:16 PM8/6/18
to Peter Eisenberger, Andrew Lockley, Mike MacCracken, geoengineering, Carbon Dioxide Removal

Peter, I should have said climate mitigation efforts in general are hugely dependent on energy costs. Further efforts like DAC require a lot of energy. The thinking is the lower we can energy costs the better for all efforts including CO2 capture.

 

The following table is from  an MIT thesis Assessment of ocean thermal energy conversion by Shylesh Muralidharan that shows ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) compares favourably with the other renewable technologies in terms of capacity and levelized capital costs.  It also high energy potential.  

 

Jim  

 

From: Peter Eisenberger <peter.ei...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, August 6, 2018 10:56 AM
To: Jim Baird <jim....@gwmitigation.com>
Cc: Andrew Lockley <andrew....@gmail.com>; Mike MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [CDR] Re: [geo] Stopping the Flood: Could We Use Targeted Geoengineering to Mitigate Sea Level Rise?

 

Jim 

I cannot follow what you wrote but DAC costs are roughly equal between capital and opex (energy) so even if energy costs decrease to zero that would only create a factor of two diference. in total costs

Peter 

  

On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 8:21 AM, Jim Baird <jim....@gwmitigation.com> wrote:

“DAC costs are hugely dependent on energy costs”.

 

The following Perez diagram shows OTEC is the third largest renewable energy source. The paper Greg Rau and I recently published estimates NEOTEC can produce 25 terawatts of power a year, at the low end of wind, while directly capturing CO2.

 

The World Coal Association estimates there are 150 years worth of coal.

 

OTEC should be able to produce 25 terawatts for the next 3,250 years and 7 terawatts thereafter in perpetuity.

 

The difference is, for 3,250 year OTEC will be operating off and converting the excess heat of warming in the oceans to productive work.   

 

 

 

 

Jim Baird

From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Monday, August 6, 2018 12:34 AM
To: Mike MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>

Cc: Peter Eisenberger <peter.ei...@gmail.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>

--

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.



 

--

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 "geoengineering" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.

--
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 post to this group, send email to CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com.

--
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 post to this group, send email to CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com.

image002.jpg
image003.png

Andrew Lockley

unread,
Aug 6, 2018, 4:10:58 PM8/6/18
to Peter Eisenberger, Jim Baird, Mike MacCracken, geoengineering, Carbon Dioxide Removal
That doesn't follow, as energy is a significant component of Capex costs, too - steel, transport, mining, etc. 

On Mon, 6 Aug 2018, 18:55 Peter Eisenberger, <peter.ei...@gmail.com> wrote:
Jim 
I cannot follow what you wrote but DAC costs are roughly equal between capital and opex (energy) so even if energy costs decrease to zero that would only create a factor of two diference. in total costs
Peter 
  
On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 8:21 AM, Jim Baird <jim....@gwmitigation.com> wrote:

“DAC costs are hugely dependent on energy costs”.

 

The following Perez diagram shows OTEC is the third largest renewable energy source. The paper Greg Rau and I recently published estimates NEOTEC can produce 25 terawatts of power a year, at the low end of wind, while directly capturing CO2.

 

The World Coal Association estimates there are 150 years worth of coal.

 

OTEC should be able to produce 25 terawatts for the next 3,250 years and 7 terawatts thereafter in perpetuity.

 

The difference is, for 3,250 year OTEC will be operating off and converting the excess heat of warming in the oceans to productive work.   

 

 

 

 

Jim Baird

From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley
Sent: Monday, August 6, 2018 12:34 AM
To: Mike MacCracken <mmac...@comcast.net>

Cc: Peter Eisenberger <peter.ei...@gmail.com>; geoengineering <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>

--

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.



 

--

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 "geoengineering" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.

--
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 post to this group, send email to CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com.

--
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 post to this group, send email to CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com.

Greg Rau

unread,
Aug 6, 2018, 4:57:14 PM8/6/18
to Jim Baird, Peter Eisenberger, Andrew Lockley, Mike MacCracken, geoengineering, Carbon Dioxide Removal
The cost of non-fossil energy does matter.  In the NE H2 case* from our Table 1, the relationship is estimated to be: $/t CDR = 574 ($/kWhe) - 2.82. So Jim's range of $0.018 to $0.259/kWhe would estimate an NE H2 CDR cost of $7.5 to $146/t CDR, equivalent to to much cheaper than Keith et al's recent DAC $ estimates. The reason NE H2 may be cheaper per $ energy than DAC is because of greater energy efficiency (e.g., no elevated T or P), and if the value of the H2 we generate is $2/kg H2 (the present value of SRM H2), then we get a revenue stream of $55/t CDR. So when biologists max out plant CDR, there's plenty of abiotic capacity at what appears to be reasonable cost, so let's find out for sure.

Greg 


From: Jim Baird <jim....@gwmitigation.com>
To: 'Peter Eisenberger' <peter.ei...@gmail.com>
Cc: 'Andrew Lockley' <andrew....@gmail.com>; 'Mike MacCracken' <mmac...@comcast.net>; 'geoengineering' <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; 'Carbon Dioxide Removal' <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, August 6, 2018 11:50 AM
Subject: RE: [CDR] Re: [geo] Stopping the Flood: Could We Use Targeted Geoengineering to Mitigate Sea Level Rise?

image002.jpg
image003.png
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages