It’s time to start talking about “negative” carbon dioxide emissions

[Greg Rau]

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/8/18/16166014/negative-emissions

"...it’s time for governments to start implementing policies that incentivize the development of carbon removal technologies. And not just one-off pilot projects, either, like the one that is spectacularly failing in Mississippi, but the kinds of policies that will build up an industry that can expand into gigatons. Just demonstrating that the technology can work is no longer enough. Time to think about scale."

GR - esp, thinking beyond land biology.

[Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf)]

Well, the message is clear, but when I propose the most scalable and proven process, and probably the cheapest way, not many people seem to listen. So again:

1:The weathering of olivine (and some similar rocks as well) has made life possible on Earth

2: Life itself (mainly marine life), by practically storing all CO2 as limestones (made up of the calcite skeletons of corals, shellfish and plankton) has provided a huge storage capacity for CO2. Carbonate sediments contain about a million times all the CO2 in seas, the atmosphere and the biosphere together.

3. The needed additional storage capacity because we burn in a few hundred years all the coal, oil and natural gas that has taken hundreds of million years to form can be found in mining, milling and spreading olivine at locations which make rapid weathering of olivine possible, like tropical countries with high rainfall, or beaches with a strong surf, where coarse olivine grains can be dumped. These grains will collide in the surf, by which small slivers of olivine are knocked off. We have shown that thee slivers often are already weathered within ten days in the saline water.

4. There are much more olivine massifs at the Earth’s surface than we will ever need to rebalance the input and output of CO2. These massifs can be mined in open pit mines. In order to minimize transport costs, such olivine mines should be strategically spread over the Earth and care can be taken to spread their locations in such a way that developing countries profit from the employment provided by the mining exploitation.

5. Spreading olivine grains can be done in such a way that other advantages of this spreading can also be used.

6. Olivine is the most common mineral on Earth.

I think that developing many, mostly unproven technologies to counter climate change is silly, as we have a natural process that has proven its validity during 4.5 billion years, Olaf Schuiling

--
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.

[Greg Rau]

Agreed, but the issue is how does that and other important ideas get into CDR policy, roadmapping and PR while seemingly more complex yet limited approaches like BECCS take center stage - better marketing, lobbyists? Granted, BECCS generates negative emissions energy, but there are other methods of doing this, including some that don't rely on biology. Given the circumstances, do we really have the luxury of  ignoring any of these until they are proven (rather than assumed to be) irrelevant?

Greg Rau

---

From: "Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf)" <R.D.Sc...@uu.nl>
To: "'gh...@sbcglobal.net'" <gh...@sbcglobal.net>; "geoengi...@googlegroups.com" <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2017 2:26 AM
Subject: RE: [geo] It’s time to start talking about “negative” carbon dioxide emissions

[Andrew Lockley]

Apart from a small cohort of interested researchers, nobody has a vested interest in questioning BECCS. 

Conversely, a large number of people have accepted it as an intellectual fig leaf to cover up the policy of continuing emissions. For many of these people, jobs and wealth are at stake. 

Therefore, the BECCS concept (no matter how outlandish) is extremely resistant to displacement. 

A

On 21 Aug 2017 00:22, "Greg Rau" <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Agreed, but the issue is how does that and other important ideas get into CDR policy, roadmapping and PR while seemingly more complex yet limited approaches like BECCS take center stage - better marketing, lobbyists? Granted, BECCS generates negative emissions energy, but there are other methods of doing this, including some that don't rely on biology. Given the circumstances, do we really have the luxury of  ignoring any of these until they are proven (rather than assumed to be) irrelevant?

Greg Rau

---

From: "Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf)" <R.D.Sc...@uu.nl>

To: "'gh...@sbcglobal.net'" <gh...@sbcglobal.net>; "geoengineering@googlegroups.com" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2017 2:26 AM
Subject: RE: [geo] It’s time to start talking about “negative” carbon dioxide emissions

Well, the message is clear, but when I propose the most scalable and proven process, and probably the cheapest way, not many people seem to listen. So again:

1:The weathering of olivine (and some similar rocks as well) has made life possible on Earth

2: Life itself (mainly marine life), by practically storing all CO2 as limestones (made up of the calcite skeletons of corals, shellfish and plankton) has provided a huge storage capacity for CO2. Carbonate sediments contain about a million times all the CO2 in seas, the atmosphere and the biosphere together.

3. The needed additional storage capacity because we burn in a few hundred years all the coal, oil and natural gas that has taken hundreds of million years to form can be found in mining, milling and spreading olivine at locations which make rapid weathering of olivine possible, like tropical countries with high rainfall, or beaches with a strong surf, where coarse olivine grains can be dumped. These grains will collide in the surf, by which small slivers of olivine are knocked off. We have shown that thee slivers often are already weathered within ten days in the saline water.

4. There are much more olivine massifs at the Earth’s surface than we will ever need to rebalance the input and output of CO2. These massifs can be mined in open pit mines. In order to minimize transport costs, such olivine mines should be strategically spread over the Earth and care can be taken to spread their locations in such a way that developing countries profit from the employment provided by the mining exploitation.

5. Spreading olivine grains can be done in such a way that other advantages of this spreading can also be used.

6. Olivine is the most common mineral on Earth.

I think that developing many, mostly unproven technologies to counter climate change is silly, as we have a natural process that has proven its validity during 4.5 billion years, Olaf Schuiling

 

 

 

 

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Greg Rau
Sent: zondag 20 augustus 2017 1:22
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] It’s time to start talking about “negative” carbon dioxide emissions

 

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/8/18/16166014/negative-emissions

 

"...it’s time for governments to start implementing policies that incentivize the development of carbon removal technologies. And not just one-off pilot projects, either, like the one that is spectacularly failing in Mississippi, but the kinds of policies that will build up an industry that can expand into gigatons. Just demonstrating that the technology can work is no longer enough. Time to think about scale."

GR - esp, thinking beyond land biology.

--
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.

--
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.

--
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.

[Peter Eisenberger]

I think it would be useful to develop a scoring system for comparing CDR approaches . One could develop a list of  the desireable attributes and a way to score each CDR approach .

The scoring approach might involve distinquished organizations like the Royal Society or be incorporated into the IPCC reports. Those same approaches could reach a consensus on the attributes. 

The idea is to bring rigor to what now is a set of unsubstantiated assertions about different CDR approaches.  These usually feature the positive aspects provided by those doing it leaving a confusing 

situation that inhibits decision making. The absence of rigor creates results that has yielded solutions that make no sense based upon what we now know.  These include  BEECS , even worse  corn based ethanol, and I would claim also CCS for coal plants. They all reached some political consencus but make little if any scientific sense and will not be part of a sustanable solution. The main point is not to be negative about the past but to suggest moving forward what is needed is more rigor in assessing CDR approaches if we are to have useful decisions in the future.   

In any case my criteria for a successful CDR approach are  

1 it can scale to remove the amount of CO2 needed ( eg amount can change so can it adjust upward if needed ) 

2 the Co2 removed from the atmosphere can be sequestered safely  

3 a low and ideally positive  social cost of the CDR process per tonne of Co2 removed - social cost =  ( the cost of the technology(so called private cost)  plus the cost/benefit of the externalities (environmental damage , or loss of agriculture land increase social cost while positively increased productivity of the land or use of CO2 to generate wealth like carbon fiber can actual reduce the social cost below the private cost) )

4 low and ideally no risk of unintended consequences when practd at large scale (minimal ideally zero impact on other geochemical cycles.   

5 low energy use , water use ,and land use  land use  

One could rank order each CDR approach in each category and then rank them overall with the lowest total the best. Note for the record I have had my students in my class at Columbia on Closing the Carbon Cycle rank the various approaches for years and DAC wins hands down. Now I am aware that my involvement could certainly skew the responses that is why i want an independent effort . The royal society did this many years ago and i think it is time to update it. 

Most importantly if the scientific community remains fractured as it currently is on this issue than progress is unlikely. If it self imposes a discipline and a candor ( eg about BECCS annd Corn Based  Ethanol) than there is a possibility a scientific consensus will emerge.  If we do not do it nobody will. 

On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Agreed, but the issue is how does that and other important ideas get into CDR policy, roadmapping and PR while seemingly more complex yet limited approaches like BECCS take center stage - better marketing, lobbyists? Granted, BECCS generates negative emissions energy, but there are other methods of doing this, including some that don't rely on biology. Given the circumstances, do we really have the luxury of  ignoring any of these until they are proven (rather than assumed to be) irrelevant?

Greg Rau

---

From: "Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf)" <R.D.Sc...@uu.nl>

To: "'gh...@sbcglobal.net'" <gh...@sbcglobal.net>; "geoengineering@googlegroups.com" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2017 2:26 AM
Subject: RE: [geo] It’s time to start talking about “negative” carbon dioxide emissions

Well, the message is clear, but when I propose the most scalable and proven process, and probably the cheapest way, not many people seem to listen. So again:

1:The weathering of olivine (and some similar rocks as well) has made life possible on Earth

2: Life itself (mainly marine life), by practically storing all CO2 as limestones (made up of the calcite skeletons of corals, shellfish and plankton) has provided a huge storage capacity for CO2. Carbonate sediments contain about a million times all the CO2 in seas, the atmosphere and the biosphere together.

3. The needed additional storage capacity because we burn in a few hundred years all the coal, oil and natural gas that has taken hundreds of million years to form can be found in mining, milling and spreading olivine at locations which make rapid weathering of olivine possible, like tropical countries with high rainfall, or beaches with a strong surf, where coarse olivine grains can be dumped. These grains will collide in the surf, by which small slivers of olivine are knocked off. We have shown that thee slivers often are already weathered within ten days in the saline water.

4. There are much more olivine massifs at the Earth’s surface than we will ever need to rebalance the input and output of CO2. These massifs can be mined in open pit mines. In order to minimize transport costs, such olivine mines should be strategically spread over the Earth and care can be taken to spread their locations in such a way that developing countries profit from the employment provided by the mining exploitation.

5. Spreading olivine grains can be done in such a way that other advantages of this spreading can also be used.

6. Olivine is the most common mineral on Earth.

I think that developing many, mostly unproven technologies to counter climate change is silly, as we have a natural process that has proven its validity during 4.5 billion years, Olaf Schuiling

 

 

 

 

From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Greg Rau
Sent: zondag 20 augustus 2017 1:22
To: geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] It’s time to start talking about “negative” carbon dioxide emissions

 

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/8/18/16166014/negative-emissions

 

"...it’s time for governments to start implementing policies that incentivize the development of carbon removal technologies. And not just one-off pilot projects, either, like the one that is spectacularly failing in Mississippi, but the kinds of policies that will build up an industry that can expand into gigatons. Just demonstrating that the technology can work is no longer enough. Time to think about scale."

GR - esp, thinking beyond land biology.

--
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.
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 "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.
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 "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.
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.

[Janos Pasztor]

Peter,

The idea of scoring CDR methods is, in my view,  a good way forward.  Your set of criteria is a good start.  I would suggest that the criteria be qualitatively linked to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the related targets.  After all the world has agreed to pursue the SDGs as the common goals for the kind of world we want to live in.   That being the case, CDR methods have to fit into those goals one way or an other.   By quantitatively linking, the adjectives like “low” that you have used in your criteria can be better defined/quantified…

     Janos
 

=======================
Janos Pasztor
Senior Fellow, Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs 
Executive Director, Carnegie Climate Geoengineering Governance Initiative (C2G2)
2 rue du Temple, CH-1180 Rolle, Switzerland
Mobile: +41-79-739-5503
jpas...@c2g2.net | Tw: @jpasztor  |  Skype: jpasztor
www.c2g2.net

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

[Stephen Salter]

Janos

All information about all methods is interesting but can be misused especially if it is not very accurate.  We are conditioned by television shows and Olympic gold medals to want a single winner when the difference between gold and silver is a tiny fraction of a second.

The cost of climate change in money and human misery is so high that we will need every possible tool in the box and use them in harmony.

I attach an example one attempt at assessment which continues to have a powerful effect on research policy.

Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk, Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704, Cell 07795 203 195, WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change

[Renaud de RICHTER]

Dear Stephen,

Many thanks for sharing this analysis: it is really interesting and full of lessons and maybe a beginning of explanations on why the vast majority of peer reviewed articles on SRM are on stratospheric sulphates.

Maybe somebody has a beginning of explanations on why the vast majority of peer reviewed articles on climate engineering are on SRM and not on CDR, or even on GHG removal?

Is there some lobbing?

Best wishes,

Renaud

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.

--
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.

--
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.

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

--
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.

[Brian Cady]

I would like to see a chart of CDR proposals, with one axis being estimated cost per ton, and the other being certainty/likelihood.

If anyone knows of such, please let me know.

Brian

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

[Brian Cady]

I wonder if in the development of models for 

http://www.kiel-earth-institute.de/CDR_Model_Intercomparison_Project.html
if there are cost/likelihood comparisons of CDR proposals.

Brian

On Monday, August 21, 2017 at 3:48:59 AM UTC-4, Peter Eisenberger wrote:

I think it would be useful to develop a scoring system for comparing CDR approaches . One could develop a list of  the desireable attributes and a way to score each CDR approach .

The scoring approach might involve distinquished organizations like the Royal Society or be incorporated into the IPCC reports. Those same approaches could reach a consensus on the attributes. 

The idea is to bring rigor to what now is a set of unsubstantiated assertions about different CDR approaches.  These usually feature the positive aspects provided by those doing it leaving a confusing 

situation that inhibits decision making. The absence of rigor creates results that has yielded solutions that make no sense based upon what we now know.  These include  BEECS , even worse  corn based ethanol, and I would claim also CCS for coal plants. They all reached some political consencus but make little if any scientific sense and will not be part of a sustanable solution. The main point is not to be negative about the past but to suggest moving forward what is needed is more rigor in assessing CDR approaches if we are to have useful decisions in the future.   

In any case my criteria for a successful CDR approach are  

1 it can scale to remove the amount of CO2 needed ( eg amount can change so can it adjust upward if needed ) 

2 the Co2 removed from the atmosphere can be sequestered safely  

3 a low and ideally positive  social cost of the CDR process per tonne of Co2 removed - social cost =  ( the cost of the technology(so called private cost)  plus the cost/benefit of the externalities (environmental damage , or loss of agriculture land increase social cost while positively increased productivity of the land or use of CO2 to generate wealth like carbon fiber can actual reduce the social cost below the private cost) )

4 low and ideally no risk of unintended consequences when practd at large scale (minimal ideally zero impact on other geochemical cycles.   

5 low energy use , water use ,and land use  land use  

One could rank order each CDR approach in each category and then rank them overall with the lowest total the best. Note for the record I have had my students in my class at Columbia on Closing the Carbon Cycle rank the various approaches for years and DAC wins hands down. Now I am aware that my involvement could certainly skew the responses that is why i want an independent effort . The royal society did this many years ago and i think it is time to update it. 

Most importantly if the scientific community remains fractured as it currently is on this issue than progress is unlikely. If it self imposes a discipline and a candor ( eg about BECCS annd Corn Based  Ethanol) than there is a possibility a scientific consensus will emerge.  If we do not do it nobody will. 

On Sun, Aug 20, 2017 at 3:22 PM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Agreed, but the issue is how does that and other important ideas get into CDR policy, roadmapping and PR while seemingly more complex yet limited approaches like BECCS take center stage - better marketing, lobbyists? Granted, BECCS generates negative emissions energy, but there are other methods of doing this, including some that don't rely on biology. Given the circumstances, do we really have the luxury of  ignoring any of these until they are proven (rather than assumed to be) irrelevant?

Greg Rau

---

From: "Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf)" <R.D.Sc...@uu.nl>

To: "'gh...@sbcglobal.net'" <gh...@sbcglobal.net>; "geoengi...@googlegroups.com" <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2017 2:26 AM
Subject: RE: [geo] It’s time to start talking about “negative” carbon dioxide emissions

Well, the message is clear, but when I propose the most scalable and proven process, and probably the cheapest way, not many people seem to listen. So again:

1:The weathering of olivine (and some similar rocks as well) has made life possible on Earth

2: Life itself (mainly marine life), by practically storing all CO2 as limestones (made up of the calcite skeletons of corals, shellfish and plankton) has provided a huge storage capacity for CO2. Carbonate sediments contain about a million times all the CO2 in seas, the atmosphere and the biosphere together.

3. The needed additional storage capacity because we burn in a few hundred years all the coal, oil and natural gas that has taken hundreds of million years to form can be found in mining, milling and spreading olivine at locations which make rapid weathering of olivine possible, like tropical countries with high rainfall, or beaches with a strong surf, where coarse olivine grains can be dumped. These grains will collide in the surf, by which small slivers of olivine are knocked off. We have shown that thee slivers often are already weathered within ten days in the saline water.

4. There are much more olivine massifs at the Earth’s surface than we will ever need to rebalance the input and output of CO2. These massifs can be mined in open pit mines. In order to minimize transport costs, such olivine mines should be strategically spread over the Earth and care can be taken to spread their locations in such a way that developing countries profit from the employment provided by the mining exploitation.

5. Spreading olivine grains can be done in such a way that other advantages of this spreading can also be used.

6. Olivine is the most common mineral on Earth.

I think that developing many, mostly unproven technologies to counter climate change is silly, as we have a natural process that has proven its validity during 4.5 billion years, Olaf Schuiling

 

 

 

 

From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:geoengi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Greg Rau
Sent: zondag 20 augustus 2017 1:22
To: geoengi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] It’s time to start talking about “negative” carbon dioxide emissions

 

https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/8/18/16166014/negative-emissions

 

"...it’s time for governments to start implementing policies that incentivize the development of carbon removal technologies. And not just one-off pilot projects, either, like the one that is spectacularly failing in Mississippi, but the kinds of policies that will build up an industry that can expand into gigatons. Just demonstrating that the technology can work is no longer enough. Time to think about scale."

GR - esp, thinking beyond land biology.

--
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 geoeng...@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 "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 "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.

[Peter Eisenberger]

Stephen,

Yes it is difficult to do an assessment of CDR approaches well and yes the problem is critical. The problem as I see it in the the response that it so critical and so diffcult that to make an assesment

that we effectively legitimize any attempt to address climate change. This in turn results in nothing really getting done. Even more debilitating we waste alot of effort within the community that cares about this on arguing with each other and negatively reacting to obvious distortions like BEECS and corn based ethanol. This further prevents any consensus of how to proceed on the carbon part of the problem . The renewable energy part was able to move forward by focussing on two , solar and wind , and have made good progress. I note that the advocates for those solutions have been arguing against CDR because they worry it will take public support away from their efforts. 

The above has led me to suggest to all that will listen that if we are serious we need to impose a discipline on the CDR community supported by a committment to distinguish between those approaches that doing R&D makes sense and others that we should focus on and get public support for because they can solve the problem. At the moment the only two I think can scale to address the carbon problem are DAC and Enhanced Weathering. However as stated above  what I think is irrelevant - we need an independent assessment by experts with public support to make the assessment needed. Without that it seems very unlikely that anything will be done beyond what is already happening. That in turn will guarantee we will go way above 500PPM . 

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.

--
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.

--
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.

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

--
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.

[Brian Cady]

Is imposing a discipline on the CDR communiy within our reach? What about approaching science funders asking for CDR comparison funding? Can we hope to influence funders with arguments on need for estimation of CDR costs and benefits?

Brian

The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
Scotland, with registration number SC005336.

--
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.
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 a topic in the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/geoengineering/8MsSdPtxsq8/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

[Phillip Williamson (ENV)]

Brian and others -

The recently-started UK Greenhouse Gas Removal research programme (http://www.nerc.ac.uk/research/funded/programmes/ggr/) is aiming to greatly improve the assessment of feasibility and effectiveness of different CDR techniques  - to address the issues discussed in the exchanges below.  However, such comparisons are not straightforward: thus many of the 'costs' involved in determining cost-effectiveness ($ per tonne CO2 removed) may be environmental or intergenerational, and/or (as yet) very difficult to determine with any confidence.

A multi/trans-disciplinary approach is therefore needed.  Whilst the GGR programme is supported by several funding agencies (NERC, EPSRC, ESRC and BEIS; see website for details) with total budget of £8.6m, not all GGR techniques are being given detailed attention.  Given the scale of the problem, an order of magnitude greater research funding is required, as a fully international initiative.

Phil Williamson

Science Coordinator: UK GGR programme

---

From: geoengi...@googlegroups.com <geoengi...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Brian Cady <brianc...@gmail.com>
Sent: 21 August 2017 20:00
To: peter.ei...@gmail.com
Cc: s.sa...@ed.ac.uk; geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] It’s time to start talking about “negative” carbon dioxide emissions

 

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

[Michael Hayes]

Dr. Pasztor et al.,

I would like to recommend that the SDGs be the actual central pivot point of any global carbon negative initiative, not just a yard stick.

SDG 14, as an example, calls for protection of the marine space and that same space is our easiest source for pulling gigaton levels of CO2 from the environment. This is possible through the use of simple and low cost Perpetual Salt Fountains.

Utilizing that captured CO2 within floating bioreactors to grow microalgae, the fastest growing plant, fixes the marine carbon in a way that allows for biochar to be produced.

That biochar, in turn, would then be available for use in the ag sector, SDG 15.

Such offshore infrastructure can, at the same time, house and employ large populations of displaced persons, the most vulnerable in SDG 11, yet this possibility is rarely mentioned in context with SDG 13, climate action.

The Seasteading Institute is but one of many groups currently developing such offshore community concepts and partnerships.

This explanation can be expanded to address most, if not all, SDGs.
I'll leave off the rest of the explanation here for brevity sake.

My primary points are:

1) Carbon negative efforts do need rapid scale up. The areas beyond national jurisdiction within the marine space can provide for that need, at the resource and spatial levels, while helping to set the stage for addressing all other SDGs.

2) Using the the SDGs as the pivot point, not as a periphery measure, can greatly help in providing focus for all concerns including the institutional investment community.


3) The high seas have one critically important aspect we are all aware of yet seldom give weight to in this type of discourse; no nation controls them outside EEZs. As such, that space is...largely...free from short sighted Nation/State policies and that is crucial in recruiting investors for such a vast scale and long-term effort; a prime concern for SDG 17.

4) SDG 14, the high seas, is our best initial pivot point at this critical juncture. IMMHO.


Respectfully,

Michael

Andrew, thank you for your years of work and patience.

[Stephen Salter]

Dear Renaud

Thank you for sending me the Stjern et al. multi-model ensemble of marine cloud brightening.

I found figure 4d very encouraging.  The big reductions of precipitation are mainly over equatorial oceans and there are valuable increases in drought-stricken land regions. I once did some work on desalination driven by wave energy and we could easily provide compensation for dry islands.  

I understand that that the G4cdnc experiments treats all clouds all the year.  Perhaps by cherry-picking times and seasons with regard to monsoons, El Niño and day-to-day observations we could do even better and get a win-win result for the great majority.

It would be useful to compare the scatter between separate runs of each model with its mean and also the mean of the entire group but this might embarrass the outliers.

Best wishes

Stephen

Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3DW, Scotland S.Sa...@ed.ac.uk, Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704, Cell 07795 203 195, WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change

On 22/08/2017 21:06, Renaud de RICHTER wrote:

Will you comment this article in discussion?
Response to marine cloud brightening in a multi-model ensemble https://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/acp-2017-629/
https://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/acp-2017-629/acp-2017-629.pdf