"Silver bullet to suck CO2 from air and halt climate change ruled out"

36 views
Skip to first unread message

Greg Rau

unread,
Feb 1, 2018, 11:05:03 PM2/1/18
to Carbon Dioxide Removal, Healthy Climate Alliance



"“You can rule out a silver bullet,” said Prof John Shepherd, at the University of Southampton, UK, and an author of the report. “Negative emissions technologies are very interesting but they are not an alternative to deep and rapid emissions reductions. These remain the safest and most reliable option that we have.”
The new report is from the European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC), which advises the European Union and is comprised of the national science academies of the 28 member states. It warns that relying on NETs instead of emissions cuts could fail and result in severe global warming and “serious implications for future generations”.” 
"The report assesses the range of possible technologies, including “bioenergy with carbon capture and storage” (BECCS), on which the IPCC scenarios rely heavily. BECCS involves growing trees, which take CO2 from the atmosphere, and then burning them to produce electricity while capturing the emissions and burying them.
But Prof Michael Norton, EASAC’s programme director and another author of the report, said: “There are severe drawbacks.” These include the huge amount of land needed and the energy need to produce and deliver the fuel. Furthermore, it could worsen the enormous loss of wildlife – the sixth mass extinction – already occurring. “The biodiversity impact at the colossal scale envisaged would be severe,” Norton said.” 

GR- Few have suggested NETs are going to singlehandedly solve the climate problem, but then apparently neither will emissions reduction. So we need both to succeed; if NETs fails so does effective atmospheric (and ocean) C management (IPCC et al.). Under these dire circumstances it is time to more broadly and open-mindedly solicit and evaluate our options (e.g., geochemistry, marine, hybrid bio-geochem approaches, etc), instead of assuming that current favorites like BECCS are/will be the only game in town.  Relative to R&D investment, CCS has seriously failed to deliver it's share of emissions reduction. Why can we expect a different outcome when it’s applied to negative emissions?   


Leon Di Marco

unread,
Feb 1, 2018, 11:40:20 PM2/1/18
to Carbon Dioxide Removal
I can now disclose that I saw the draft EASAC NETs report before it was published and made some comments on the DAC section directly to Mike Norton, who did change the wording as a result.   (I was shown the draft on the basis of strict confidentiality)      Unfortunately I wasnt aware of the preparation of the Report till rather too late otherwise I would have been able to make a detailed intervention. 

I am also disappointed with it and will send John Shepherd an email with Greg's comment and my own 
I will also invite him to post here
The statement on the EASAC publication page below is not helpful
LDM
FSK Technology Research
LONDON UK



Reports and statements Environment

Negative emission technologies

What role in meeting Paris Agreement targets?

In a new report by the European Academies’ Science Advisory Council (EASAC), senior scientists from across Europe have evaluated the potential contribution of negative emission technologies (NETs) to allow humanity to meet the Paris Agreement’s targets of avoiding dangerous climate change. They find that NETs have “limited realistic potential” to halt increases in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at the scale envisioned in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scenarios. This new report finds that none of the NETs has the potential to deliver carbon removals at the gigaton (Gt) scale and at the rate of deployment envisaged by the IPCC, including reforestation, afforestation, carbon-friendly agriculture, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCs), enhanced weathering, ocean fertilisation, or direct air capture and carbon storage (DACCs).

“Scenarios and projections that suggest that NETs’ future contribution to CO2 removal will allow Paris targets to be met appear optimistic on the basis of current knowledge and should not form the basis of developing, analysing, and comparing scenarios of longer-term energy pathways for the EU. Relying on NETs to compensate for failures to adequately mitigate emissions may have serious implications for future generations," state the European science academies.

EASAC_Report_on_Negative_Emission_Technologies.pdf

Leon Di Marco

unread,
Feb 2, 2018, 12:03:57 AM2/2/18
to Carbon Dioxide Removal
https://www.carbonbrief.org/negative-emissions-have-limited-potential-to-help-meet-climate-goals

TECHNOLOGY 
31 January 2018  23:01

Negative emissions have ‘limited potential’ to help meet climate goals



The potential for using negative emissions technologies to help meet the goals of the Paris Agreement could be more “limited” than previously thought, concludes a new report by European science advisors.

Negative emissions technologies (NETs) describe a variety of methods – many of which are yet to be developed – that aim to limit climate change by removing CO2 from the air.

Some of these techniques are already included by scientists in modelled “pathways” showing how global warming can be limited to between 1.5C and 2C above pre-industrial levels, which is the goal of the Paris Agreement.

However, the new report says there is no “silver bullet technology” that can be used to solve the problem of climate change, scientists said at a press briefing held in London.

Instead, “the primary focus must be on mitigation, on reducing emissions of greenhouse gases,” they added.

Zero emissions

The 37-page report was produced by the European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC), an independent group made up of staff from the national science academies of EU member states, Norway and Switzerland, which offers scientific advice to EU policymakers.

Drawing on the results of recently published research papers, the report assesses the feasibility and possible impacts of NETs.

The report splits these “technologies” into six categories:

  • Afforestation and reforestation
  • Land management to increase soil carbon
  • Bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS)
  • Enhanced weathering
  • Direct capture of CO2
  • Ocean fertilisation.

A Carbon Brief article published in 2016 explained how these proposed technologies might work.

Though differing in approach, all of the proposed NETs aim to slow climate change by removing CO2 from the atmosphere and storing it underground or in the sea.

Some scientists argue that such technologies could be used to soak up some of the CO2 that is released by human activity, which could, in turn, help the world to achieve “net-zero” greenhouse gas emissions.

Net-zero emissions is a term used to describe a scenario where the amount of greenhouse gases released by humans is balanced by the amount absorbed from the atmosphere.

Achieving net-zero emissions within this century will be key to limiting global warming to between 1.5C and 2C above pre-industrial levels, says Prof Michael Norton, EASAC environment programme director and member of the expert group behind the report. At a press briefing, he said:

“Indeed, without assuming that technologies can remove CO2 on a large, that’s gigatonne [billion tonne] scale, IPCC scenarios have great difficulty in envisaging an emission reduction pathway consistent with the Paris targets.”

However, the new report suggests that there is currently no “silver bullet” technology that can absolve the world of its greenhouse gas emissions, scientists said at a press briefing. The report concludes:

“We conclude that these technologies offer only limited realistic potential to remove carbon from the atmosphere and not at the scale envisaged in some climate scenarios.”

The report also shows that many of the NETs could have large environmental impacts, says Prof John Shepherd FRS, emeritus professor of ocean and Earth sciences at the University of Southampton and member of the expert group behind the report. He told the press briefing:

“Some of these techniques would have adverse environmental impacts, including some of the ones that appear to be natural. There is an emotional response in most people to prefer natural appearing solutions, but, in many cases, the environmental are as great as the more engineering-type applications.”

The “pros and cons” of each proposed technology are summed up on the table below. The top half of the table includes: the technical status of each technology; the amount of carbon that could be removed if the technology were to be implemented on a wide scale; the potential cost of implementing the technology (low/medium/high); and the likely efficacy of each method.

The bottom half of the table assesses: the relative security of the carbon storage of each technology; the possibility that the technology may actually contribute to climate change; and the possibility that the technology could have environmental impacts.

A summary of the strengths, weaknesses and uncertainties of negative emissions technologies (NETs). Technologies include afforestation and reforestation (AR), land management (LM), bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), enhanced weathering (EW), direct air capture and storage (DACCS), ocean fertilisation (OIF) and carbon capture and storage (CCS). Source: EASAC (2018)

Blow for BECCS?

One of the techniques under scrutiny in the new report is BECCS. Put simply, BECCS involves burning biomass – such as trees and crops – to generate energy and then capturing the resulting CO2 emissions before they are released into the air.

BECCS has been labelled one of the “most promising” NETs and is already included by scientists in many of the modelled “pathways” showing how global warming can be limited to 2C above pre-industrial levels.

However, BECCS has yet to be demonstrated on a commercial basis, the report finds, and its ability to effectively store large amounts of carbon is still “uncertain”.

Recent research has revealed a number of “drawbacks” to using BECCS on a wide scale, Norton said:

“These include the reality that even if all the carbon emitted when the biomass is burnt were to be captured, extensive emissions across the supply chain will not be captured, thus severely limiting its effectiveness as a negative carbon technology.”

In other words, the emissions resulting from the different stages of BECCS, including on transportation and on applying nitrogen fertilisers, may significantly reduce the technology’s overall ability to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. In some cases, biomass energy might have higher emissions than fossil fuels.

On top of this, implementing BECCS on a large scale would require large amounts of land to be converted to biomass plantations, which could have considerable environmental impacts, the report notes. Carbon Brief recently covered new research investigating how using BECCS could affect different aspects of the natural world.

Forest fall out

The report also assesses the potential of afforestation, creating new forests on land that was not previously forest, and reforestation, planting new trees on land that was once forest, to remove carbon from the atmosphere.

Trees absorb carbon from the atmosphere during photosynthesis and then use it to build new leaves, shoots and roots. By doing this, trees are able to store carbon for long periods.

However, implementing afforestation on a large scale could have “significant” environmental impacts, the new report finds. This is because growing new forests would require a large amount of land-use change and the application of nitrogen fertilisers. The production of nitrogen fertilisers releases a group of potent greenhouse gases known as nitrous oxides, along with CO2.

On top of this, new trees take many years to grow and so will not be able to immediately absorb large amounts of carbon from the atmosphere, Norton said:

“We can also see many scenarios in which the land-use change involved in extending forestry would be counterproductive for decades or even centuries.”

Norton said that curbing the rate of deforestation, which is causing the release of large stores of carbon from the world’s tropical regions, should be a priority for policymakers. He added:

Forestation and reforestation offer simple ways of increasing carbon stocks, but it would be a mistake to be distracted from the reality of the current situation which is that…carbon is being lost by continuing deforestation.

 
Share quote:  

Cutting to the chase

Despite potential drawbacks, there may be some scenarios where the use of NETs will be “necessary” to balance the release of greenhouse gases, said Shepherd:

“They are especially likely to be necessary to deal with intractable sources of greenhouse gases, in particular aviation and agriculture.”

In other words, NETs may be needed to compensate for industries that are unable to radically cut their rate of greenhouse gas emissions.

Such industries could include cattle ranching and rice production, says Dr Phil Williamson, associate fellow at the University of East Anglia, who was not an author of the new report. At the sidelines of the press briefing, he told Carbon Brief:

“There’s a whole lot of things that are going to be very difficult to control, including methane from cattle and methane from rice. We’re not going to stop growing rice, so we’re still going to have methane emissions. In order to have that balance, we’re still going to need some negative emissions technologies.”

However, the “primary focus” of policymakers should be on rapidly cutting greenhouse gas emissions, said Prof Gideon Henderson FRS, professor of Earth sciences at the University of Oxford and reviewer of the report. He told the press briefing:

“The primary focus must be on mitigation, on reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. That’s not going to be easy, but it’s undoubtedly going to be easier than doing NETs at a substantial scale.”




On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 4:05:03 AM UTC, Greg Rau wrote:

Greg Rau

unread,
Feb 2, 2018, 1:08:40 AM2/2/18
to Leon Di Marco, Carbon Dioxide Removal
Thanks Leon. Yes, disappointing to read these CDR policy recommendations, pg. 13 (though I'm sure cheered in some quarters):
"The EU should thus consider what
possible policy options may be appropriate to
climate policy. For instance, by considering:
• supporting initiatives such as ‘4 per mille’ by
incentivising agriculture to increase SOC;
• providing greater incentives to increase carbon
stocks in forests (EASAC, 2017);
• reviewing and updating CCS development and
demonstration programmes;
• conducting research on reducing energy and
resource costs of DAC;
• maintaining a watching brief for other options
to remove CO2 to compensate for sectors such
as aviation where fossil fuels cannot easily be
substituted; and
• addressing the weakness of market forces to fund
deployment of CCS (and ultimately viable NETs)
owing to the low carbon price and questions over
the eligibility of NETs within the Emissions Trading
Scheme."

I.e., "We're betting on land bio, DAC and esp CCS, and even though we think these approaches will fall short, we recommend zero investment in other/emerging ideas."

Greg


From: Leon Di Marco <len...@gmail.com>
To: Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 1, 2018 8:40 PM
Subject: [CDR] Re: "Silver bullet to suck CO2 from air and halt climate change ruled out"

--
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/346b26ed-31f7-4f8d-a51b-fa431c4bc499%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Peter Eisenberger

unread,
Feb 2, 2018, 4:31:18 AM2/2/18
to Greg Rau, Leon Di Marco, Carbon Dioxide Removal
Greg 
I am somewhat confused . Is this your opinion 


  Relative to R&D investment, CCS has seriously failed to deliver it's share of emissions reduction. Why can we expect a different outcome when it’s applied to negative emissions?   

The answer I tried to provide you and others is that 
difference is that CCS is a drain on the economy 
while DAC followed by profitable use will create wealth 
and thus a positive feedback loop just like is now happening 
with solar as it becomes cheaper than fossil fuel power 
Shell predicts full scale solar will reach 1 Ct per kwhr
At $50 dollars per tonne for DAC co2 the carbon content is equivalent to $23 
dollar per barrel oil . We at Global Thermostat will be below that at scale 
which is why TODAY we are working with large brand name companies 
and smaller entrepreneurial firms to replace 
fossil based resources of carbon with DAC carbon 
for plastics , cement ,carbon fiber , fertilizer / biochar 

As I have written many times it dismays me how reluctant people seem 
to be to accept there is a solution and that solution will make us 
not have trade meeting the needs of the developing world 
with climate protection. I do understand those who feel 
that human progress is the ultimate problem oppose accepting 
accepting this path but I would have thought all others 
would rejoice and support it 


Global Thermostat has shown the  potential for low cost 
under $50 DAC . This is agreed to by many global companies 
with world class carbon capture expertise based upon  information provided under confidentiality . We will do it with them and when done 
make the commercial facility public 
With all the current policy debates and in my opinion 
misguided conclusions and statements I am trying to find a way 
to make public that low cost DAC is feasible 
and that there is a positive solution to the climate chalkenge we face 
I have offered to present our results to the academy committee 
and am awaiting their response 
Other thoughts are welcomed 

 

Sent from my iPhone

Leon Di Marco

unread,
Feb 2, 2018, 1:21:32 PM2/2/18
to Carbon Dioxide Removal
This is a very helpful offer from Peter Eisenberger on behalf of Global Thermostat
I have for several years tried to educate/influence the European Commission about DAC.    The EASAC Report has been prepared by a very high powered group (including  Prof Marco Mazzotti from ETH Zurich, professor of process engineering )  and will have to be refuted by evidence.    I was  unable to present more than the outcome of the NAS committee on CDR workshop of October 2017, with their assessment of the 2011 APS report on DAC, to the EASAC lead author, Mike Norton .

Scientists are not good at techno economic analysis and Gideon Henderson's quote in the Carbonbrief piece is an example-
The primary focus must be on mitigation, on reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. That’s not going to be easy, but it’s undoubtedly going to be easier than doing NETs at a substantial scale.”

If possible it would be very helpful for the NAS CDR committee to make a statement about DAC costs before-
A           The upcoming conference on Negative CO2 Emissions at Gothenburg in May
B            The publication of the IPCC SR1.5 Special Report in October

Im sure that adequate publicity can be arranged for such an announcement

LDM




Global Thermostat has shown the  potential for low cost 
under $50 DAC . This is agreed to by many global companies 
with world class carbon capture expertise based upon  information provided under confidentiality . We will do it with them and when done 
make the commercial facility public 
With all the current policy debates and in my opinion 
misguided conclusions and statements I am trying to find a way 
to make public that low cost DAC is feasible 
and that there is a positive solution to the climate chalkenge we face 
I have offered to present our results to the academy committee 
and am awaiting their response 


On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 4:05:03 AM UTC, Greg Rau wrote:

Greg Rau

unread,
Feb 2, 2018, 2:45:20 PM2/2/18
to Peter Eisenberger, Leon Di Marco, Carbon Dioxide Removal
Peter,
Am all for creating wealth while solving the CO2 problem, but that requires markets where the C products made can outcompete conventional products and do so at a scale that makes a climate difference. While making products from CO2 concentrated from combustion or from air at $50/tonne CO2 (I appreciate your calculation of DAC cost (at what global capacity?), but am still standing by for a citeable reference of this) is one way to go, we should not ignore biotically or abiotically making products that don't require starting with conc CO2. So in the absence of large commercial markets driving R&D, the pre-commercial R&D agenda should be one that invites, encourages and competes alternative ideas against current favorites in addition to trying to improve those favorites. This is clearly not EASAC's recommendation, nor is it in other recent reports I've seen. One can only hope that the upcoming NAS CDR agenda will be more open minded at this early stage of tech development, but I'm not holding my breath.
Greg


From: Peter Eisenberger <peter.ei...@gmail.com>
To: Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net>
Cc: Leon Di Marco <len...@gmail.com>; Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, February 2, 2018 1:31 AM
Subject: Re: [CDR] Re: "Silver bullet to suck CO2 from air and halt climate change ruled out"

Greg 
I am somewhat confused . Is this your opinion 


  Relative to R&D investment, CCS has seriously failed to deliver it's share of emissions reduction. Why can we expect a different outcome when it’s applied to negative emissions?   

The answer I tried to provide you and others is that 
difference is that CCS is a drain on the economy 
while DAC followed by profitable use will create wealth 
and thus a positive feedback loop just like is now happening 
with solar as it becomes cheaper than fossil fuel power 
Shell predicts full scale solar will reach 1 Ct per kwhr
At $50 dollars per tonne for DAC co2 the carbon content is equivalent to $23 
dollar per barrel oil . We at Global Thermostat will be below that at scale 
which is why TODAY we are working with large brand name companies 
and smaller entrepreneurial firms to replace 
fossil based resources of carbon with DAC carbon 
for plastics , cement ,carbon fiber , fertilizer / biochar 

As I have written many times it dismays me how reluctant people seem 
to be to accept there is a solution and that solution will make us 
not have trade meeting the needs of the developing world 
with climate protection. I do understand those who feel 
that human progress is the ultimate problem oppose accepting 
accepting this path but I would have thought all others 
would rejoice and support it 


Global Thermostat has shown the  potential for low cost 
under $50 DAC . This is agreed to by many global companies 
with world class carbon capture expertise based upon  information provided under confidentiality . We will do it with them and when done 
make the commercial facility public 
With all the current policy debates and in my opinion 
misguided conclusions and statements I am trying to find a way 
to make public that low cost DAC is feasible 
and that there is a positive solution to the climate chalkenge we face 
I have offered to present our results to the academy committee 
and am awaiting their response 
On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 4:05:03 AM UTC, Greg Rau wrote:
"“You can rule out a silver bullet,” said Prof John Shepherd, at the University of Southampton, UK, and an author of the report. “Negative emissions technologies are very interesting but they are not an alternative to deep and rapid emissions reductions. These remain the safest and most reliable option that we have.”
The new report is from the European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC), which advises the European Union and is comprised of the national science academies of the 28 member states. It warns that relying on NETs instead of emissions cuts could fail and result in severe global warming and “serious implications for future generations”.” 
"The report assesses the range of possible technologies, including “bioenergy with carbon capture and storage” (BECCS), on which the IPCC scenarios rely heavily. BECCS involves growing trees, which take CO2 from the atmosphere, and then burning them to produce electricity while capturing the emissions and burying them.
But Prof Michael Norton, EASAC’s programme director and another author of the report, said: “There are severe drawbacks.” These include the huge amount of land needed and the energy need to produce and deliver the fuel. Furthermore, it could worsen the enormous loss of wildlife – the sixth mass extinction – already occurring. “The biodiversity impact at the colossal scale envisaged would be severe,” Norton said.” 

GR- Few have suggested NETs are going to singlehandedly solve the climate problem, but then apparently neither will emissions reduction. So we need both to succeed; if NETs fails so does effective atmospheric (and ocean) C management (IPCC et al.). Under these dire circumstances it is time to more broadly and open-mindedly solicit and evaluate our options (e.g., geochemistry, marine, hybrid bio-geochem approaches, etc), instead of assuming that current favorites like BECCS are/will be the only game in town.  Relative to R&D investment, CCS has seriously failed to deliver it's share of emissions reduction. Why can we expect a different outcome when it’s applied to negative emissions?   
--
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/346b26ed-31f7-4f8d-a51b-fa431c4bc499%40googlegroups.com.
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/1620423527.1703790.1517551713110%40mail.yahoo.com.
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.

voglerlake

unread,
Feb 2, 2018, 5:13:02 PM2/2/18
to Carbon Dioxide Removal
Here are a few papers on seaweed biochar which may help the authors explore marine tech beyond OIF:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2017&q=seaweed,+biochar&hl=en&as_sdt=0,48

Thanks,

Peter Eisenberger

unread,
Feb 3, 2018, 12:55:53 AM2/3/18
to Greg Rau, Leon Di Marco, Carbon Dioxide Removal
Greg ,

The scale to reach $50 per tonne is 100,000 tones of installed capacity[-  As far as a quoteable source I have hopes the Academy and others are recognizing that $50 and lower is definitely feasible.
As Steve Pacala Chair  of the Academy committee stated in a videoed portion of the committee -the market place will decide - for our technology the market place has decided- we have on going projects where CO2 to plastic  
can beat the oil to plastic straightup , co2 to fertiizer that eaily beats the Haber Bosch Process and others . My only concern is that the companies with the expertise already know it is the carbon removal community policy leaders many who do 
not have the technical expertise that have not acceptd it yet. I really am hopeful the academy committee will make that clear and I hope they will accept our offer. 

Peter    


On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 11:45 AM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Peter,
Am all for creating wealth while solving the CO2 problem, but that requires markets where the C products made can outcompete conventional products and do so at a scale that makes a climate difference. While making products from CO2 concentrated from combustion or from air at $50/tonne CO2 (I appreciate your calculation of DAC cost (at what global capacity?), but am still standing by for a citeable reference of this) is one way to go, we should not ignore biotically or abiotically making products that don't require starting with conc CO2. So in the absence of large commercial markets driving R&D, the pre-commercial R&D agenda should be one that invites, encourages and competes alternative ideas against current favorites in addition to trying to improve those favorites. This is clearly not EASAC's recommendation, nor is it in other recent reports I've seen. One can only hope that the upcoming NAS CDR agenda will be more open minded at this early stage of tech development, but I'm not holding my breath.
Greg


From: Peter Eisenberger <peter.ei...@gmail.com>
To: Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net>
Cc: Leon Di Marco <len...@gmail.com>; Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDioxideRemoval@googlegroups.com>
To: Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDioxideRemoval@googlegroups.com>
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.
--
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.





--
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.

Leon Di Marco

unread,
Feb 3, 2018, 7:38:03 PM2/3/18
to Carbon Dioxide Removal

Greg you say-
the pre-commercial R&D agenda should be one that invites, encourages and competes alternative ideas against current favorites in addition to trying to improve those favorites. This is clearly not EASAC's recommendation, nor is it in other recent reports I've seen. One can only hope that the upcoming NAS CDR agenda will be more open minded at this early stage of tech development, but I'm not holding my breath.

Here first from the NAS CDR page-

The list of CDR approaches to be examined would include land and coastal (i.e., tidal wetlands, seagrass meadows, and mangroves) ecosystems management, accelerated weathering, bioenergy with capture, direct air capture, geologic sequestration, and other approaches deemed by the study committee to be of similar viability in terrestrial and coastal environments.


Surely it is up to the interested US science community to ensure that  the NAS CDR agenda covers all the aspects that you think it should.  If you find it wanting are you making representations to the Chairman?   
( the proceedings below is an example of the scope)
A brief proceeding of a workshop held by the NAS CDR committee on Coastal Blue Carbon in July last year that is now up on the NAS CDR site 
It has had 805 worldwide downloads since it was published by the NAP in December. 

Coastal Blue Carbon Approaches for Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration:
Proceedings of a Workshop—in Brief

Among the many valuable ecosystems services of coastal environments is their ability to take up some of the excess carbon from the atmosphere. This new publication summarizes a workshop that explored the potential to restore and manage coastal habitats, particularly coastal wetlands, as a viable carbon dioxide removal approach (often termed coastal blue carbon). Workshop speakers described their relevant work including the state of knowledge and research needs related to understanding carbon capacity and flux in coastal systems, the processes driving sustainability of coastal wetland carbon storage in the future, potential incentives for coastal blue carbon, and policy and governance challenges.



Description

Coastal environments provide many valuable ecosystem services. Their role as carbon sinks has been a topic of exploration to evaluate the potential for the restoration and management of coastal habitats as a viable carbon dioxide removal (CDR) approach. To explore the state of knowledge, technical research needs, costs, co-benefits, and societal and governance constraints of CDR in coastal ecosystems (often termed coastal blue carbon), the Committee on Developing a Research Agenda for Carbon Dioxide Removal and Sequestration convened its first workshop on July 26, 2017, in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. Invited speakers described their relevant work in order to provide the committee with an overview of the state of knowledge and research needs related to understanding carbon capacity and flux in coastal systems, the processes driving sustainability of coastal wetland carbon storage in the future, potential incentives for coastal blue carbon, and policy and governance challenges. The workshop was preceded by an introductory webinar on July 19, 2017, where invited speakers provided an overview of the ecosystems under consideration for coastal carbon removal and sequestration, as well as the costs and other considerations of restoring them. This publication summarizes the presentations from both the webinar and workshop.





On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 4:05:03 AM UTC, Greg Rau wrote:

Greg Rau

unread,
Feb 3, 2018, 9:35:11 PM2/3/18
to Leon Di Marco, Carbon Dioxide Removal
Thanks Leon. From their website and some webcasts I'm aware of what the committee has done. Their holding of informational meetings on all of the usual CDR suspects such as Blue Carbon is an appropriate place to start. But what also needs to happen at this early stage of tech development is to solicit input from others who are not working on the current favorites, who don't (yet) have a large constituency, but whose ideas could prove to be cost-effective and cost-competitive with further R&D.
We are at the beginning not the end of the search for CDR methods, so in addition to R&Ding current favorites, let's not do so at the expense of stifling innovation and assuming that we know now what CDR will look like 30 or even 5 years hence. Technology doesn't advance by ignoring unpopular and unfamiliar ideas.
Yes, I have communicated this to Steve Pacala and a few others on the committee.
Greg


From: Leon Di Marco <len...@gmail.com>
To: Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 3, 2018 4:38 PM

Subject: [CDR] Re: "Silver bullet to suck CO2 from air and halt climate change ruled out"

Greg you say-
the pre-commercial R&D agenda should be one that invites, encourages and competes alternative ideas against current favorites in addition to trying to improve those favorites. This is clearly not EASAC's recommendation, nor is it in other recent reports I've seen. One can only hope that the upcoming NAS CDR agenda will be more open minded at this early stage of tech development, but I'm not holding my breath.

Here first from the NAS CDR page-
The list of CDR approaches to be examined would include land and coastal (i.e., tidal wetlands, seagrass meadows, and mangroves) ecosystems management, accelerated weathering, bioenergy with capture, direct air capture, geologic sequestration, and other approaches deemed by the study committee to be of similar viability in terrestrial and coastal environments.

Surely it is up to the interested US science community to ensure that  the NAS CDR agenda covers all the aspects that you think it should.  If you find it wanting are you making representations to the Chairman?   
( the proceedings below is an example of the scope)
A brief proceeding of a workshop held by the NAS CDR committee on Coastal Blue Carbon in July last year that is now up on the NAS CDR site 
It has had 805 worldwide downloads since it was published by the NAP in December. 

Among the many valuable ecosystems services of coastal environments is their ability to take up some of the excess carbon from the atmosphere. This new publication summarizes a workshop that explored the potential to restore and manage coastal habitats, particularly coastal wetlands, as a viable carbon dioxide removal approach (often termed coastal blue carbon). Workshop speakers described their relevant work including the state of knowledge and research needs related to understanding carbon capacity and flux in coastal systems, the processes driving sustainability of coastal wetland carbon storage in the future, potential incentives for coastal blue carbon, and policy and governance challenges.


Description

Coastal environments provide many valuable ecosystem services. Their role as carbon sinks has been a topic of exploration to evaluate the potential for the restoration and management of coastal habitats as a viable carbon dioxide removal (CDR) approach. To explore the state of knowledge, technical research needs, costs, co-benefits, and societal and governance constraints of CDR in coastal ecosystems (often termed coastal blue carbon), the Committee on Developing a Research Agenda for Carbon Dioxide Removal and Sequestration convened its first workshop on July 26, 2017, in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. Invited speakers described their relevant work in order to provide the committee with an overview of the state of knowledge and research needs related to understanding carbon capacity and flux in coastal systems, the processes driving sustainability of coastal wetland carbon storage in the future, potential incentives for coastal blue carbon, and policy and governance challenges. The workshop was preceded by an introductory webinar on July 19, 2017, where invited speakers provided an overview of the ecosystems under consideration for coastal carbon removal and sequestration, as well as the costs and other considerations of restoring them. This publication summarizes the presentations from both the webinar and workshop.




On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 4:05:03 AM UTC, Greg Rau wrote:
"“You can rule out a silver bullet,” said Prof John Shepherd, at the University of Southampton, UK, and an author of the report. “Negative emissions technologies are very interesting but they are not an alternative to deep and rapid emissions reductions. These remain the safest and most reliable option that we have.”
The new report is from the European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC), which advises the European Union and is comprised of the national science academies of the 28 member states. It warns that relying on NETs instead of emissions cuts could fail and result in severe global warming and “serious implications for future generations”.” 
"The report assesses the range of possible technologies, including “bioenergy with carbon capture and storage” (BECCS), on which the IPCC scenarios rely heavily. BECCS involves growing trees, which take CO2 from the atmosphere, and then burning them to produce electricity while capturing the emissions and burying them.
But Prof Michael Norton, EASAC’s programme director and another author of the report, said: “There are severe drawbacks.” These include the huge amount of land needed and the energy need to produce and deliver the fuel. Furthermore, it could worsen the enormous loss of wildlife – the sixth mass extinction – already occurring. “The biodiversity impact at the colossal scale envisaged would be severe,” Norton said.” 

GR- Few have suggested NETs are going to singlehandedly solve the climate problem, but then apparently neither will emissions reduction. So we need both to succeed; if NETs fails so does effective atmospheric (and ocean) C management (IPCC et al.). Under these dire circumstances it is time to more broadly and open-mindedly solicit and evaluate our options (e.g., geochemistry, marine, hybrid bio-geochem approaches, etc), instead of assuming that current favorites like BECCS are/will be the only game in town.  Relative to R&D investment, CCS has seriously failed to deliver it's share of emissions reduction. Why can we expect a different outcome when it’s applied to negative emissions?   
--
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.

Leon Di Marco

unread,
Feb 3, 2018, 10:30:13 PM2/3/18
to Carbon Dioxide Removal
yes I quite agree about serendipity and how difficult it is for a committee to scope for it 
there has been a big debate about how to further renewable energy R&D , and now the same for energy storage.
Various schemes have been bandied around for large labs devoted to energy, which havent come to fruition or have gone.    (the UK has had the public / private Energy Technology Institute, which had some big commercial sponsors who have decided to pull their funds, and is going to close)
 Having worked in a large commercial R&D lab for several years (GEC Hirst, now shut), that has some advantages depending on how much scope people are given.   The Virgin Earth Challenge doesnt seem to have generated  much new work which is disappointing.

One model is the new large Francis Crick Institute for biomedical research in London, where they hope to hothouse interdisciplinary medical research, having incorporated several disparate university and govt labs together.   (run by Nobel laureate Paul Nurse)
 I hope that EASAC has not closed the debate down for now in Europe, but SR1.5 is bound to generate more interest in NETs - the NAS CDR study really is the only public game in town at the moment.
( the NAS video of last years DAC workshop shows that there is a lot of interest from the big boys such as Shell and Exxon - Shell is pushing DAC R&D at Houston.     I spoke to someone from BP HQ last week - they are just looking.  It is time for govts to use regulation to give a signal )


On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 4:05:03 AM UTC, Greg Rau wrote:

Peter Eisenberger

unread,
Feb 3, 2018, 11:01:22 PM2/3/18
to Greg Rau, Leon Di Marco, Carbon Dioxide Removal
Hi Greg 

I must say I do not understand the scientific  technical basis for your assertions. It seems to me that a systems analysis of the options we could concievable use can when combined with our knowledge reach a much more specific conclusion.  Given that the longer we delay the higher the risk of catastrophic climate change and the more challenging (more CDR will be needed we need to identify our best shot as soon as  possble  . Consider this as the first conclusion of the systems analysis . The next are as follows 

1 The fundamental problem is that we humans need to close the carbon cycle -eg fill in the missing segment from the atmosphere to sequestraion 
2 We should reduce our CO2 emissions into the atmosphere-renewable energy to replace fossil based energy as quickly as possible   , conservation , efficiency and where it makes sense CCS - l  
3 The time it will take to do this wll mean that we will overshoot and need CDR 
4 The CDR solution should not conflict with the needs of the developing world to provide for their people -our fellow humans
   This is both a political constraint and the right thing to do   
5 CDR can be divided at a systems level into those that involve other earth systems - the sea , the forests , the land and those that do not -they invovle only human systems -the latter has only one candidate both logically and in fact -namely DAC converted converted into human materials ( eg like nature both into structual materials like carbon fiber , cement and engineering(high temeperature high strength plastics.) 
6  Now the final and most important conclusion of my systems analysis is that if you have the following criteria from above for a solution
A Needs to be scalable so that tens of gigatonnes of CO2 can be removed on annual basis ( how many tens will depend upon 3 and 4 -but because of 5 we will overshoot so that tens of gigatonnes per year will be needed  
B Needs to satisfy 5 so the lower the cost or as I argue ideally  should support the needs of the people in the developing world 
C Needs to minimize any unintended consequences on life on this planet - change ocean chemistry 

I assert if you rated all concievable solutions and give a score of 1-10 with a ten being scalable , stimulates economic development , and has leaset unintended consequences that DAC to valuable products wins hands down .

So what could prevent this solution from being successful. The only rational barriers are that 
1 the cost will be too high 
2 there will not be enough human sinks 

I am very hopeful that the academy will show that very low cost CO2 is feasible. If one is not convinced by their reasoning than the highest priority R&D should be to do a demonstration project that shows it concretely.  As you well know I claim GT has found a low cost approach and have offered to share it with the academy and others interested.  As to the size of the human sinks that both sequester the CO2 for the long time needed and stimulate economic growth I have done an analysis where the answer is yes. But a second task should be convene experts on technoeconomic analysis to make a public assessment . 

So my issue is that we should give the highest priority to seeing if the  solution with highest potential to address the challenge we face will in fact work -if yes we have no time to waste -if not then we could look for the next highest ranking option - which in my rating would be DAC followed by mineral sequestrtion . 


I should tell you that for the past 10 years I have taught a course at Columbia on Closing th Carbn Cycle . I have guest speakers who are pursuing CDR opitions . The students pick one of the CDR approaches as a term paper including SRM  that they analzye and present to the whole class . After all the sudent reports are presented they each privately vote using a scale simiiar to above. I tabulate their analysis and year in year out DAC wins hands down with their major concern being the cost of DAC. They find all the other ones either as not scalable and/or with significant risks of uninteded consequences    

How would you and others rate the options we have.   


On Sat, Feb 3, 2018 at 6:35 PM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Thanks Leon. From their website and some webcasts I'm aware of what the committee has done. Their holding of informational meetings on all of the usual CDR suspects such as Blue Carbon is an appropriate place to start. But what also needs to happen at this early stage of tech development is to solicit input from others who are not working on the current favorites, who don't (yet) have a large constituency, but whose ideas could prove to be cost-effective and cost-competitive with further R&D.
We are at the beginning not the end of the search for CDR methods, so in addition to R&Ding current favorites, let's not do so at the expense of stifling innovation and assuming that we know now what CDR will look like 30 or even 5 years hence. Technology doesn't advance by ignoring unpopular and unfamiliar ideas.
Yes, I have communicated this to Steve Pacala and a few others on the committee.
Greg


From: Leon Di Marco <len...@gmail.com>
To: Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDioxideRemoval@googlegroups.com>
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRemoval+unsubscrib...@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+unsubscrib...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to CarbonDioxideRemoval@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Greg Rau

unread,
Feb 4, 2018, 3:58:09 PM2/4/18
to Peter Eisenberger, Leon Di Marco, Carbon Dioxide Removal, Stephen W. Pacala
Dear Peter,
I believe that given the nature of technology development, there is a very good chance that current CDR favorites will not be the only ones worth pursuing. The telephone, automobile, airplane, PC, penicillin, etc are all examples of technologies that at some point were not anticipated. Are we really ready at this juncture to prescribe how CDR will ultimately be done, without also keeping the door open for new ideas?
As for CDR "closing the C cycle" I'd say more accurately the task is to rechannel or speed up C flow out of air and into some form of sequestration, avoiding cycling back to air. I agree that making long lived, useful compounds is an obvious way to go, though your restricting this to human-relevant compounds greatly limits capacity. For example, the quantity of dissolved carbonate alkalinity needed to counter and remediated ocean acidity dwarfs human demand/consumption of C products. Such alkalinity can be made from CO2 using processes that don't require the costly formation of concentrated CO2:
As for demand and markets for such alkalinity, one can consider the $1T/yr damages anticipated from OA by the end of the century under BAU.

Here are some other examples of potentially high capacity, abiotic CDR that apparently aren't on anyone's radar (yet):

and as other list members will attest, this is not the last word on possibilities. I think that these approaches can in some cases be cheaper and higher capacity than DAC, but we will never know if CDR policy and R&D agendas are restricted just to currently-popular ideas. Anyway, in the event that there is no "silver bullet", we need to diligently find out what bullets we have and to be prepared to constantly update that list.

Meantime, I very much look forward to seeing the official performance figures on your DAC system; it will be an important benchmark for all of CDR and perhaps the fate of the planet.

Regards,
Greg


From: Peter Eisenberger <peter.ei...@gmail.com>
To: Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net>
Cc: Leon Di Marco <len...@gmail.com>; Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 3, 2018 8:01 PM
Subject: Re: [CDR] Re: "Silver bullet to suck CO2 from air and halt climate change ruled out"


For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/op tout.

--
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.

Greg Rau

unread,
Feb 4, 2018, 5:03:21 PM2/4/18
to Leon Di Marco, Carbon Dioxide Removal
"Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do, and they will surprise you with their ingenuity." Gen. Patton


From: Leon Di Marco <len...@gmail.com>
To: Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 3, 2018 7:30 PM

Subject: [CDR] Re: "Silver bullet to suck CO2 from air and halt climate change ruled out"
yes I quite agree about serendipity and how difficult it is for a committee to scope for it 
there has been a big debate about how to further renewable energy R&D , and now the same for energy storage.
Various schemes have been bandied around for large labs devoted to energy, which havent come to fruition or have gone.    (the UK has had the public / private Energy Technology Institute, which had some big commercial sponsors who have decided to pull their funds, and is going to close)
 Having worked in a large commercial R&D lab for several years (GEC Hirst, now shut), that has some advantages depending on how much scope people are given.   The Virgin Earth Challenge doesnt seem to have generated  much new work which is disappointing.

One model is the new large Francis Crick Institute for biomedical research in London, where they hope to hothouse interdisciplinary medical research, having incorporated several disparate university and govt labs together.   (run by Nobel laureate Paul Nurse)
 I hope that EASAC has not closed the debate down for now in Europe, but SR1.5 is bound to generate more interest in NETs - the NAS CDR study really is the only public game in town at the moment.
( the NAS video of last years DAC workshop shows that there is a lot of interest from the big boys such as Shell and Exxon - Shell is pushing DAC R&D at Houston.     I spoke to someone from BP HQ last week - they are just looking.  It is time for govts to use regulation to give a signal )

On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 4:05:03 AM UTC, Greg Rau wrote:
"“You can rule out a silver bullet,” said Prof John Shepherd, at the University of Southampton, UK, and an author of the report. “Negative emissions technologies are very interesting but they are not an alternative to deep and rapid emissions reductions. These remain the safest and most reliable option that we have.”
The new report is from the European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC), which advises the European Union and is comprised of the national science academies of the 28 member states. It warns that relying on NETs instead of emissions cuts could fail and result in severe global warming and “serious implications for future generations”.” 
"The report assesses the range of possible technologies, including “bioenergy with carbon capture and storage” (BECCS), on which the IPCC scenarios rely heavily. BECCS involves growing trees, which take CO2 from the atmosphere, and then burning them to produce electricity while capturing the emissions and burying them.
But Prof Michael Norton, EASAC’s programme director and another author of the report, said: “There are severe drawbacks.” These include the huge amount of land needed and the energy need to produce and deliver the fuel. Furthermore, it could worsen the enormous loss of wildlife – the sixth mass extinction – already occurring. “The biodiversity impact at the colossal scale envisaged would be severe,” Norton said.” 

GR- Few have suggested NETs are going to singlehandedly solve the climate problem, but then apparently neither will emissions reduction. So we need both to succeed; if NETs fails so does effective atmospheric (and ocean) C management (IPCC et al.). Under these dire circumstances it is time to more broadly and open-mindedly solicit and evaluate our options (e.g., geochemistry, marine, hybrid bio-geochem approaches, etc), instead of assuming that current favorites like BECCS are/will be the only game in town.  Relative to R&D investment, CCS has seriously failed to deliver it's share of emissions reduction. Why can we expect a different outcome when it’s applied to negative emissions?   
--
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.

voglerlake

unread,
Feb 4, 2018, 5:17:21 PM2/4/18
to Carbon Dioxide Removal
Peter et al.,

Here is a response to your comment:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1uRM0UiunOJGRJDN1_18eSRJgcFsu43394loOGCCJGz0/edit?usp=drivesdk&ouid=104123587495980221759

Best regards,

Michael

Michael MacCracken

unread,
Feb 5, 2018, 10:41:38 PM2/5/18
to Peter Eisenberger, Greg Rau, Leon Di Marco, Carbon Dioxide Removal

Dear Peter--A bit belated in my response, but my answer to your query would be that the problem is too serious and urgent to be attacking it in series rather than with a parallel effort involving a diverse set of approaches is what is needed.

And the efforts need to span from efficiency to the range of alternative energy technologies to adaptation as well as across CDR and SRM. The only way we'll be able to keep from very serious climate, sea level, and acidification consequences is with a comprehensive approach--the costs of doing this will be far less than the impacts. So, in my view, this circling of the wagons and shooting in is just not going to get us to a solution.

Mike

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.

Leon Di Marco

unread,
Feb 6, 2018, 6:13:52 AM2/6/18
to Carbon Dioxide Removal
As part of his disclosure, Peter may be prepared to open his Columbia course tools to allow others to explore his analysis - that would be very beneficial not only for the CDR Study but also for the wider global R&D discussion, and could be in the form of a teaching paper

There should really not be an issue with DAC being the front runner as it will be the benchmark and pathfinder.   If other proposals are said to match DAC at scale or have other benefits then they will have to offer a similar level of disclosure and techno economic analysis.   There are other schemes around, as Greg has outlined, but they have been publicised and usually belong to the class of versions of a given technique  rather than being original.

Although R&D are usually lumped together,  both R and D cover a wide range, and, as with other technologies, the requirement for further R into  DAC etc is a separate issue to their need for D.    The program / study  should recognise that.
LDM


On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 4:05:03 AM UTC, Greg Rau wrote:

Peter Eisenberger

unread,
Feb 6, 2018, 9:21:49 PM2/6/18
to Leon Di Marco, Carbon Dioxide Removal
Hi All,

I am no way saying that we should not do research on CDR -we should and the more the better - what I am saying similr to Leon  that we have at the moment only one CDR that has the capability to scale to level and low if non existent risks of unintended consequences with plausible claims it can even stimulate economc development and help the developing countries meet the needs of their people. So all I am saying is that work done by DAC companies and the great need and potential means we should move into the development phase of DAC with both public and private support. It makes no sense to me in the presence of a threat to wait for other option to emerge, When that happens I will be the first to support moving those to the development stage as well. The one I feel is the closest  is mineral sequestration but it's net cost impact will be greater if the DAC capability to sequester in valuable materials construction right where they are needed. So I would support increased research on that option which I note currently gets more pulic support than DAC because Dac gets zero. 

Peter  

--
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/07feff8a-8175-47db-8e49-8cdfb40014d4%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

voglerlake

unread,
Feb 7, 2018, 1:22:51 AM2/7/18
to Carbon Dioxide Removal
Peter,

I ask that you spell out your specific objections to using perpetual salt fountains as a CDR method.

Best regards,

Michael

Peter Eisenberger

unread,
Feb 7, 2018, 2:15:07 AM2/7/18
to voglerlake, Carbon Dioxide Removal
Hi Michael 

Cost - 
Water use 
use with power plants not CDR 

Peter  
 

--
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/f8d7b660-4df1-4102-a470-42aff7759fad%40googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

voglerlake

unread,
Feb 7, 2018, 3:18:51 AM2/7/18
to Carbon Dioxide Removal
Peter,

Cost is no more than cheap plastic tubes. There is no need for power plants. Are you up to speed on the tech?

If not, https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C48&q=Perpetual+salt+fountain&oq=per

Best regards,

Michael.

voglerlake

unread,
Feb 7, 2018, 3:24:11 AM2/7/18
to Carbon Dioxide Removal
Peter,

I think the Ocean can afford the water use.

M

Greg Rau

unread,
Feb 7, 2018, 1:03:53 PM2/7/18
to voglerlake, Carbon Dioxide Removal
Michael,
A perpet. salt fountain spontaneously lifts deep, CO2- and nutrient-rich ocean water to the surface ocean. Please explain (in a paragraph) how this will remove CO2 from air.

Secondly, your replies are stand-alone statements and do not include preceding statements by others, This makes it very difficult to follow the discussion and what you are responding to. So if your "reply" button" does not automatically include the email your are responding to, please use the "forward" button instead, with appropriate addressing.

Thanks,
Greg


From: voglerlake <vogle...@gmail.com>

To: Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 7, 2018 12:24 AM
Subject: Re: [CDR] Re: "Silver bullet to suck CO2 from air and halt climate change ruled out"

Peter,

I think the Ocean can afford the water use.

M

--
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 CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com.

Andrew Lockley

unread,
Feb 7, 2018, 2:57:12 PM2/7/18
to Peter Eisenberger, Leon Di Marco, Carbon Dioxide Removal
Carbfix shows that these two technologies are intertwined 

On 7 Feb 2018 02:21, "Peter Eisenberger" <peter.ei...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi All,

I am no way saying that we should not do research on CDR -we should and the more the better - what I am saying similr to Leon  that we have at the moment only one CDR that has the capability to scale to level and low if non existent risks of unintended consequences with plausible claims it can even stimulate economc development and help the developing countries meet the needs of their people. So all I am saying is that work done by DAC companies and the great need and potential means we should move into the development phase of DAC with both public and private support. It makes no sense to me in the presence of a threat to wait for other option to emerge, When that happens I will be the first to support moving those to the development stage as well. The one I feel is the closest  is mineral sequestration but it's net cost impact will be greater if the DAC capability to sequester in valuable materials construction right where they are needed. So I would support increased research on that option which I note currently gets more pulic support than DAC because Dac gets zero. 

Peter  
On Tue, Feb 6, 2018 at 3:13 AM, Leon Di Marco <len...@gmail.com> wrote:
As part of his disclosure, Peter may be prepared to open his Columbia course tools to allow others to explore his analysis - that would be very beneficial not only for the CDR Study but also for the wider global R&D discussion, and could be in the form of a teaching paper

There should really not be an issue with DAC being the front runner as it will be the benchmark and pathfinder.   If other proposals are said to match DAC at scale or have other benefits then they will have to offer a similar level of disclosure and techno economic analysis.   There are other schemes around, as Greg has outlined, but they have been publicised and usually belong to the class of versions of a given technique  rather than being original.

Although R&D are usually lumped together,  both R and D cover a wide range, and, as with other technologies, the requirement for further R into  DAC etc is a separate issue to their need for D.    The program / study  should recognise that.
LDM


On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 4:05:03 AM UTC, Greg Rau wrote:



"“You can rule out a silver bullet,” said Prof John Shepherd, at the University of Southampton, UK, and an author of the report. “Negative emissions technologies are very interesting but they are not an alternative to deep and rapid emissions reductions. These remain the safest and most reliable option that we have.”
The new report is from the European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC), which advises the European Union and is comprised of the national science academies of the 28 member states. It warns that relying on NETs instead of emissions cuts could fail and result in severe global warming and “serious implications for future generations”.” 
"The report assesses the range of possible technologies, including “bioenergy with carbon capture and storage” (BECCS), on which the IPCC scenarios rely heavily. BECCS involves growing trees, which take CO2 from the atmosphere, and then burning them to produce electricity while capturing the emissions and burying them.
But Prof Michael Norton, EASAC’s programme director and another author of the report, said: “There are severe drawbacks.” These include the huge amount of land needed and the energy need to produce and deliver the fuel. Furthermore, it could worsen the enormous loss of wildlife – the sixth mass extinction – already occurring. “The biodiversity impact at the colossal scale envisaged would be severe,” Norton said.” 

GR- Few have suggested NETs are going to singlehandedly solve the climate problem, but then apparently neither will emissions reduction. So we need both to succeed; if NETs fails so does effective atmospheric (and ocean) C management (IPCC et al.). Under these dire circumstances it is time to more broadly and open-mindedly solicit and evaluate our options (e.g., geochemistry, marine, hybrid bio-geochem approaches, etc), instead of assuming that current favorites like BECCS are/will be the only game in town.  Relative to R&D investment, CCS has seriously failed to deliver it's share of emissions reduction. Why can we expect a different outcome when it’s applied to negative emissions?   


--
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.

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/07feff8a-8175-47db-8e49-8cdfb40014d4%40googlegroups.com.

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 "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/CANx_M7RcOkMYfRffENp1%3D3zbbRwzAxPK%2B%3Dp1Y6kFFAruk79J0g%40mail.gmail.com.

voglerlake

unread,
Feb 7, 2018, 4:17:25 PM2/7/18
to Carbon Dioxide Removal
Greg,

Regrettably, my phone does not allow replies to specific posts, just to the thread itself. I will be careful to quote the post that I'm responding to. Funding for better equipment will be available soon.

You asked for a brief description of how a Perpetual Salt Fountain removes atmospheric CO2.

The Perpetual Salt Fountain, or a powered intake tube, only needs to go down to the nutricline for BlueBiochar cultivation needs which, in colder water, is at the surface, not at depth. In such waters, the BlueBiochar operations' water discharge flow will have significantly lower pCO2 levels than the local surface water as the biomass cultivation inside the BlueBiochar bioreactors converts the CO2 into biomass. The low pCO2 content of the discharged water will increase local atmospheric/ocean CO2 surface exchange throughput rates. High pCO2 water in, low to no pCO2 water out.

This is OTEC with grow tanks attached and with biological throughput volumes equal to or better than OIF. The equipment ROI is estimated to be 5-7 years with an indefinite LCA time frame on equipment service life.

For the general reader, here is a brief overview of the nutricline within a paper's summary section. The paper is warning about ocean stratification which the BlueBiochar system can also help address:

http://www.pnas.org/content/105/51/20344

Greg, thanks for the feedback and question.

Michael

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages