Re: [CDR] Digest for CarbonDioxideRemoval@googlegroups.com - 12 updates in 10 topics
35 views
Skip to first unread message
Laura Wasserson
Aug 22, 2023, 11:54:23 AM8/22/23
to CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com
Thank you for reaching out. I am out of the office until August 28, with limited access to email.
If your matter is urgent and requires immediate attention please contact fl...@climitigation.org or er...@climitigation.org.
For non-urgent matters, I will attend to your email as soon as I return. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and appreciate your understanding.
Best,
Laura
On Tue, 22 Aug 2023 17:51:49 +0200, CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com wrote:
- Cutting global warming down to size by cooling the ocean surface down to the preindustrial level in 226 years and maintaining that temperature for millennia. - 1 Update
- 20 point plan - 2 Updates
- Full steam ahead: Ebb’s ocean carbon removal solution is up and running at PNNL-Sequim - 1 Update
- Ebb Carbon at Sequim facility, Dept of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) - 1 Update
- WEEKLY SUMMARY (14 AUGUST-20 AUGUST 2023) - 1 Update
- HPAC meeting with Chris Vivian on Ocean CDR: August 24, 4:30 PM EDT. - 1 Update
- Ecuador electorate hands double victory for CDR - 2 Updates
- Biological impact of ocean alkalinity enhancement of magnesium hydroxide on marine microalgae using bioassays simulating ship-based dispersion - 1 Update
- Carbon dioxide reduction by photosynthesis undetectable even during phytoplankton blooms in two lakes - 1 Update
- Digest for CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com - 1 update in 1 topic - 1 Update
"Jim Baird" <jim....@gwmitigation.com>: Aug 22 08:30AM -0700
Chris I look forward to your presentation to the HPAC group on Thursday.
I would be interested to know how you explain how GESAMP ruled out Thermodynamic Geoengineering on the basis of a scientific fairy tale per the following.
Jim Baird
From: Ken Caldeira
Sent: June 23, 2023 5:27 PM
To: Jim Baird <jim....@gwmitigation.com>
Cc: Kevin Trenberth <tren...@ucar.edu>; carbondiox...@googlegroups.com; Suzanne Reed <csuzann...@gmail.com>; Ron Baiman <rpba...@gmail.com>; Renaud de RICHTER <renaud.d...@gmail.com>; Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>; Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>; Al Binger <newy...@gmail.com>; JPAB...@stthomas.edu; david...@uchicago.edu; Douglas Grandt <answer...@mac.com>
Subject: Re: [CDR] Cutting global warming down to size by cooling the ocean surface down to the preindustrial level in 226 years and maintaining that temperature for millennia.
Who knows?
Any perturbation large enough to have a substantive climate effect is also likely to produce some unanticipated outcomes.
Agreed however that the simulations we have done may not be germane. Nevertheless, if you are cooling the Earth from the ocean surface, that is going to influence land-sea temperature contrasts which will have dynamical effects.
A more concerning issue is that I for the past decade have been trying to hire a good postdoc to investigate these sorts of issues in more detail using a climate model, and I have been unable to attract an excellent candidate who would like to do so (despite being able to attract good postdocs to work on other topic areas).
Bright and highly motivated early career scientists apparently do not look at evaluating ocean carbon and climate proposals as a good career move (or they do not have the kind of mathematical skills and sensibility needed to do the job well).
Best,
Ken
On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 4:57 PM Jim Baird <jim....@gwmitigation.com <mailto:jim....@gwmitigation.com> > wrote:
Ken, my understanding of your experiment was you increased the background vertical diffusivity in the top 1000 m of the water column to 60 cm2 s-1. This is like the ultimate shaking of the pop bottled before you release the lid. This would be a massive releasing of ocean dissolved CO2 into the atmosphere. Little wonder then the surface temperature soon spiked.
Thermodynamic Geoengineering doesn’t move water. It only moves heat as the latent heat of the working fluid. It is assumed the surface temperature will be 1.8C the system is fully built out and it would decrease only decrease only .008 degrees for the next 226 years.
Compare this to the 0.2C per year warming the top 5 meters of the ocean is experiencing today with the climate experiment that is currently being undertaken.
Whereas you upswelled 60 at 60 cm2 s-1, heat released at 1000 meters will diffuse back to the surface at 1 cm/day to the bottom of the mixed layer and 1 m/day through that layer thus ~ 226 years. After which the surface would be at the preindustrial level which would only to have to be cooled only .008C every year for the next 3000 years to compensate for the trapped heat that is being converted to work.
IMHO the concerns that have been expressed about this have been overwrought and the cloud implications are a red herring.
Jim
From: Kevin Trenberth
Sent: June 23, 2023 2:58 PM
To: Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegiescience.edu <mailto:kcal...@carnegiescience.edu> >; Jim Baird <jim....@gwmitigation.com <mailto:jim....@gwmitigation.com> >
Cc: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <mailto:carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> ; Suzanne Reed <csuzann...@gmail.com <mailto:csuzann...@gmail.com> >; Ron Baiman <rpba...@gmail.com <mailto:rpba...@gmail.com> >; Renaud de RICHTER <renaud.d...@gmail.com <mailto:renaud.d...@gmail.com> >; Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com <mailto:robert...@gmail.com> >; Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org <mailto:gor...@globalcoral.org> >; Al Binger <newy...@gmail.com <mailto:newy...@gmail.com> >; JPAB...@stthomas.edu <mailto:JPAB...@stthomas.edu> ; david...@uchicago.edu <mailto:david...@uchicago.edu> ; Douglas Grandt <answer...@mac.com <mailto:answer...@mac.com> >
Subject: Re: [CDR] Cutting global warming down to size by cooling the ocean surface down to the preindustrial level in 226 years and maintaining that temperature for millennia.
Excellent point. Same with several other forms of geoengineering: fiddling with clouds: the feedbacks and other changes are not accounted for. If you brighten clouds in one area, it has impacts in surrounding areas.
Kevin
On 6/24/23 9:18 AM, Ken Caldeira wrote:
Not sure this is relevant to carbon dioxide removal, but we did a simulation in a coupled carbon-climate atmosphere-ocean model in which the tropical surface temperatures were cooled by mixing the heat deeper into the ocean.
The result was, in the perturbation, that the cooler ocean surface caused air to ascend over land and descend over the oceans, which blew away most clouds over the ocean. The resulting change in albedo resulted in additional warming.
One hundred years later, the planet was warmer than if the ocean pumping did not occur.
I am not saying this cannot be made to work, and that our particular scenario is in any way representative of other related scenarios, but proposals should be examined in models, because what you think will happen does not always happen.
On Fri, Jun 23, 2023 at 2:04 PM Jim Baird <jim....@gwmitigation.com <mailto:jim....@gwmitigation.com> > wrote:
Apologies.
Doug Grandt pointed out the link is wrong. It should be: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QnX3HANrlo
Thanks
From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <mailto:carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Jim Baird
Sent: June 23, 2023 12:21 PM
To: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <mailto:carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> ; 'Suzanne Reed' <csuzann...@gmail.com <mailto:csuzann...@gmail.com> >; 'Ron Baiman' <rpba...@gmail.com <mailto:rpba...@gmail.com> >; 'Renaud de RICHTER' <renaud.d...@gmail.com <mailto:renaud.d...@gmail.com> >; 'Robert Chris' <robert...@gmail.com <mailto:robert...@gmail.com> >; 'Tom Goreau' <gor...@globalcoral.org <mailto:gor...@globalcoral.org> >; 'Al Binger' <newy...@gmail.com <mailto:newy...@gmail.com> >; 'Kevin Trenberth' <tren...@ucar.edu <mailto:tren...@ucar.edu> >; JPAB...@stthomas.edu <mailto:JPAB...@stthomas.edu> ; david...@uchicago.edu <mailto:david...@uchicago.edu>
Subject: [CDR] Cutting global warming down to size by cooling the ocean surface down to the preindustrial level in 226 years and maintaining that temperature for millennia.
https://studio.youtube.com/video/0QnX3HANrlo
A target of zero degrees of warming from the preindustrial level is neither ambition nor unachievable with an ocean heat focused climate policy.
To fail to immediately address the total Earth System Sensitivity is the ultimate in procrastination, false economy and supreme disservice to future generations.
Jim Baird
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com <mailto:CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com> .
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/000e01d9a607%24d0ab00f0%24720102d0%24%40gwmitigation.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/000e01d9a607%24d0ab00f0%24720102d0%24%40gwmitigation.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> .
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com <mailto:CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com> .
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/002001d9a616%2442b54e90%24c81febb0%24%40gwmitigation.com <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/002001d9a616%2442b54e90%24c81febb0%24%40gwmitigation.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> .
--
Kevin E Trenberth
Distinguished Scholar
National Center for Atmospheric Research
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/
Email: tren...@ucar.edu <mailto:tren...@ucar.edu> ph +64 27 771 4868
Honorary Academic, Department of Physics, Auckland University, NZ
Mail address:
127A Churchill Road, Rothesay Bay
Auckland 0630, New Zealand
Please see my new book: "The changing flow of energy through the climate system"
Cambridge University Press.
Paperback 978-1-108-97246-8
https://www.amazon.com/Changing-Energy-Through-Climate-System/dp/1108972462/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=Trenberth <https://www.amazon.com/Changing-Energy-Through-Climate-System/dp/1108972462/ref=sr_1_2?keywords=Trenberth&qid=1639208299&s=books&sr=1-2> &qid=1639208299&s=books&sr=1-2
Roger Arnold <silver...@gmail.com>: Aug 21 11:30PM -0700
> I*f Michaux was right, oil production would be rapidly declining now
because of peak oil.*
Michaux's thesis is quite a bit more nuanced than that, Dan. He's a very
qualified mining engineer, and he's quite familiar with crustal abundances
and resource pyramids. His arguments have more to do with EROI and the cost
of mining infrastructure than with resource depletion. I'm not even sure it
makes sense to discuss his work in terms of whether or not he's "right".
His work is predicated on a set of assumptions, and he's pretty good about
spelling out what those assumptions are. He relies on data and numerical
analysis to project as best he can what is or isn't feasible, consistent
with those assumptions. He arrives at the conclusion that a "business as
usual" economy based on 100% renewable energy plus storage will not and
cannot fly.
One can certainly challenge the assumptions that underlie Michaux's
conclusions. In fact, I picture Michaux standing before a class of
prospective mining and materials engineering students at ANU and announcing
"Here's your assignment class. I've shown that the common assumptions on
which our governments have been basing their energy and climate policies
are hopelessly at odds with the results they're supposed to achieve.
Something will have to change. In two weeks, you will turn in papers
detailing what changes to assumptions and goals you think will be needed to
allow for a realist solution. Quantitative justification for changes must
be given; no hand-waving allowed. Collaborative efforts are permitted and
encouraged. Have fun."
On Sunday, August 20, 2023 at 2:37:31 PM UTC-7 dan wrote:
Michael Hayes <electro...@gmail.com>: Aug 22 06:28AM -0700
Hello, Roger
How is this directly related to CDR?
Best Regards
Geoengineering News <geoengine...@gmail.com>: Aug 22 03:33PM +0500
https://www.ebbcarbon.com/post/ebb-carbon-ocean-carbon-removal-solution-operational-at-pnnl-sequim
*By Ben Tarbell*
*21 August 2023*
At Ebb Carbon, our goal is to remove billions of tons of carbon dioxide
from the air while locally reducing ocean acidification. To accomplish
this, we have developed an ocean carbon dioxide removal (CDR) system that
takes a proven electrochemical technology and applies it to the defining
challenge of our time: climate change.
Today, I’m proud to share that Ebb Carbon is operating our first 100 ton
ocean CDR system at the DOE’s only marine lab, Pacific Northwest National
Lab (PNNL)-Sequim. We are fortunate to work alongside world-leading experts
in ocean health, modeling and biogeochemistry from PNNL, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), NOAA’s Pacific Marine
Environmental Laboratory (PMEL), and the University of Washington’s
Cooperative Institute for Climate, Ocean and Ecosystem Studies (CICOES) and
the Salish Sea Modeling Center (SSMC).
[image: The view of Sequim Bay from the PNNL laboratory]
Our view of Sequim Bay from our location at PNNL
Building the scientific foundations for ocean carbon dioxide removal
Ebb will operate our system, which is roughly the size of a shipping
container, at PNNL-Sequim’s marine labs lab for at least two years. In the
lab, Ebb’s system processes seawater pumped in from Sequim Bay by passing
it through a series of membranes. These membranes act like a filter,
removing acid from the water. Once the acid is removed, the seawater can
absorb additional CO₂ from the air and store it as bicarbonate—a safe and
naturally abundant form of carbon storage in the ocean that doesn’t acidify
seawater.
With our scientific collaborators, we are undertaking several important
investigations. We are running experiments to measure and model how much
CO₂ is removed from the air as a result of Ebb’s process. We are developing
ocean modeling tools, so scientists can run virtual experiments to better
understand how Ebb’s process captures and stores carbon and helps locally
mitigate ocean acidification. We are also conducting lab experiments to
understand any impacts on local marine biology like oysters and eelgrass
epifauna—an important food source for salmon.
The results of this work will be published to help advance the field of
ocean CDR, grow awareness and understanding of Ebb’s climate solution, and
lay the foundations for a rigorous measurement, reporting and verification
(MRV) methodology for Ebb’s ocean CDR solution.
[image: Ebb Carbon's system within PNNL-Sequim's labs]
A view of the Ebb system from within PNNL's lab
Parallels to the solar industry
The similarities between the state of the ocean carbon dioxide removal
industry today and the solar industry in the early 2000s are striking. Many
of the technologies that can help us remove carbon dioxide from the air,
like electrochemistry, aren’t new; it’s how we’re applying them to CDR and
scaling them that’s novel. And just like in the early days of solar, ocean
CDR needs expert scientific validators who can help gather and analyze the
data that will build trust in, and acceptance of, this climate technology.
My time in the solar industry started on the eve of the *50th anniversary
of the discovery of the silicon photovoltaic cell by Bell Labs in 1954*
<https://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/solar_timeline.pdf>. In those
early days, I spent a surprising amount of time side-by-side with
scientists at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Colorado.
Together, we were finding answers to the questions I most often heard from
investors and customers: would the solar panels perform safely and
reliably, day after day in the way we predicted? Would the panels last long
enough to pay back the financing required to buy them in the first place?
Solar had never been a mainstream technology, so despite its 50 year
history, the industry didn’t tackle the challenge of building broad
acceptance and adoption until the 21st century. Meeting this challenge was
an investment–and we had to start slow to go fast.
It took time to work with the experts at NREL to gather data, and then
share that data to bridge the gaps in understanding between scientists,
investors, and energy consumers. All of that deliberate, hard work to drive
transparency and trust built the foundations of the solar industry as we
know it today. The cost of solar has *declined over 90% in the last decade*
<https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy22osti/82854.pdf>, and by the end of 2020
there were approximately *2.7 million residential solar systems in the U.S*
<https://usafacts.org/articles/how-much-solar-energy-do-homes-produce/#:~:text=In%202005%2C%20Congress%20passed%20a,solar%20systems%20in%20the%20US>
.
Advancing Ebb’s climate solution
At Ebb, we are collaborating to advance our climate solution because we
know that removing our first tons of CO₂ today in the right way will speed
the way to removing billions of tons of CO₂ in the future. By working with
national labs and academic partners, we’re anchoring our efforts to deploy
safely and effectively in rigorous science.
Our work at PNNL-Sequim is just the beginning. As we work to safely and
responsibly remove billions of tons of excess carbon dioxide from the air,
we are eager to join forces with scientists, academics, NGOs, and local
communities who want to help shape the future of ocean carbon removal. If
this sounds like you, we’d *love to hear from you*
<https://www.ebbcarbon.com/contact>.
*-> Read our press announcement on the launch of our PNNL-Sequim site*
<https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230821282579/en/In-First-Deployment-Ebb-Carbon-Uses-Seawater-to-Capture-Store-CO2>
SEQUIM BAY, Wash.--(BUSINESS WIRE <https://www.businesswire.com/>)--Ebb
Carbon
<https://cts.businesswire.com/ct/CT?id=smartlink&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebbcarbon.com%2F&esheet=53542552&newsitemid=20230821282579&lan=en-US&anchor=Ebb+Carbon&index=1&md5=fb038bfdff41f61ecd1b73a3d2e693d4>
–
a climate technology startup founded by former Google X, Tesla, and
SolarCity execs – has installed and begun operating its first marine carbon
dioxide removal (mCDR) and ocean deacidification system at the Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) facility in Sequim, Washington,
marking an important step as the company begins to deploy its technology
following a recent Series A investment round
<https://cts.businesswire.com/ct/CT?id=smartlink&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.businesswire.com%2Fnews%2Fhome%2F20230419005661%2Fen%2FEbb-Carbon-Raises-20-million-Series-A-the-largest-investment-in-ocean-based-carbon-removal-technology-to-date&esheet=53542552&newsitemid=20230821282579&lan=en-US&anchor=Series+A+investment+round&index=2&md5=1c5ed1e3e716ed9d73dd0008a9b01f24>
.
“Given the realities of climate change, we must act quickly to deploy
solutions to remove excess CO2 from the atmosphere,” said Ben Tarbell, CEO
of Ebb Carbon.
Tweet this
<https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20230821282579/en/In-First-Deployment-Ebb-Carbon-Uses-Seawater-to-Capture-Store-CO2#>
Ebb is taking a measured, science-based approach to its first deployment,
partnering closely with some of the world’s most respected ocean monitoring
and modeling institutions to gather and publicly share data about its
technology. This approach is generating real-world, scientifically
validated data that will provide visibility into Ebb’s carbon-removal
process and provide a strong foundation of understanding to support
responsible future deployments of this critical climate solution.
The collaborative partnership includes the U.S. Department of Energy’s Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory - Sequim
<https://cts.businesswire.com/ct/CT?id=smartlink&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pnnl.gov%2Fpnnl-sequim&esheet=53542552&newsitemid=20230821282579&lan=en-US&anchor=Pacific+Northwest+National+Laboratory+-+Sequim&index=3&md5=77850f7e93b1a2a51bd99e55bbf8becb>
(PNNL-Sequim),
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Pacific Marine
Environmental Laboratory
<https://cts.businesswire.com/ct/CT?id=smartlink&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pmel.noaa.gov%2F&esheet=53542552&newsitemid=20230821282579&lan=en-US&anchor=Pacific+Marine+Environmental+Laboratory&index=4&md5=7d7fab9aadd746252f07e342a0a0a5a9>
(NOAA/PMEL),
the NOAA Cooperative Institute for Climate, Ocean, and Ecosystem Studies
<https://cts.businesswire.com/ct/CT?id=smartlink&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcicoes.uw.edu%2F&esheet=53542552&newsitemid=20230821282579&lan=en-US&anchor=Cooperative+Institute+for+Climate%2C+Ocean%2C+and+Ecosystem+Studies&index=5&md5=8a0be3e695f3936c357e38a301b9c214>
(CICOES)
and the Salish Sea Modeling Center
<https://cts.businesswire.com/ct/CT?id=smartlink&url=https%3A%2F%2Fssmc-uw.org%2F&esheet=53542552&newsitemid=20230821282579&lan=en-US&anchor=Salish+Sea+Modeling+Center&index=6&md5=4cff83dc4ed8b76a387565a552c4be16>,
both at the University of Washington. Funding support is being provided by
the NOAA Ocean Acidification Program (OAP), the U.S. Department of Energy’s
Water Power Technologies Office (WPTO), and the ClimateWorks Foundation
<https://cts.businesswire.com/ct/CT?id=smartlink&url=https%3A%2F%2Fclimateworks.org%2F&esheet=53542552&newsitemid=20230821282579&lan=en-US&anchor=ClimateWorks+Foundation&index=7&md5=eaa65bbddf6e4cca13640216a61d10be>
.
“Given the realities of climate change, we must act quickly to deploy
solutions to remove excess CO2 from the atmosphere,” said Ben Tarbell, CEO
of Ebb Carbon. “It’s equally important that we do this in a way that is
transparent and facilitates public dialogue so that scientists,
researchers, policymakers, and communities have visibility into the
process. We welcome the opportunity to work with some of the world’s
leading scientists and researchers as we begin to scale our technology.”
Ebb's first system, which is roughly the size of a shipping container,
processes seawater that is pumped into PNNL-Sequim's marine lab from Sequim
Bay. The seawater passes through a series of membranes, which act like a
filter, removing acid from the water. Once the acid is removed, the
seawater can absorb additional carbon dioxide from the air and store it as
bicarbonate in the water. Bicarbonate is a durable and naturally abundant
form of carbon storage in the ocean.
Before returning to the ocean, the treated seawater will be held in open
air tanks to facilitate research, experimentation and simulation to
document the impacts of the process on CO2 sequestration, ocean
deacidification, and local biology. The treated seawater will return to the
ocean through PNNL's existing wastewater system in accordance with existing
permits. The research team is also evaluating the potential to power the
Ebb system using marine energy including energy from ocean waves, tides,
currents, as well as salinity, thermal and pressure gradients.
The low-carbon acid that Ebb’s system produces can be used to neutralize
alkaline waste locally. Ebb is in discussions with local sand and gravel
operations who can utilize the acid to neutralize alkaline stormwater.
Ebb’s system in Sequim Bay has the capacity to remove up to 100 tons of
atmospheric CO2 per year but will operate at a reduced capacity to allow
for research by Ebb and its scientific partners. The system is designed to
run intermittently, allowing it to leverage intermittent, low-carbon energy
by ramping up and down based on the availability of local renewable energy
sources.
Ebb's technology is designed to speed up a natural process that restores
ocean chemistry by neutralizing excess acidity. This increased acidity is
the direct result of human-generated CO2 emissions over the last 200 years,
and threatens marine ecosystems. Ebb’s process of deacidification not only
restores ocean chemistry; it also enables seawater to safely draw down
atmospheric CO2 by converting it to bicarbonate – the ocean’s natural
storage solution for CO2 – without adding additional acidity. At scale,
Ebb’s technology can play a meaningful role in removing
already-emitted CO2 from
Earth’s atmosphere – an estimated 6-10 billion tons
<https://cts.businesswire.com/ct/CT?id=smartlink&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.unepfi.org%2Findustries%2Finvestment%2Fnet-zero-asset-owner-alliance-backs-call-to-scale-up-carbon-removal-from-atmosphere%2F&esheet=53542552&newsitemid=20230821282579&lan=en-US&anchor=an+estimated+6-10+billion+tons&index=8&md5=fe5e44ddbda07b4d257d69c0c4f49790>
of
which will need to be removed each year until 2050 in order to meet climate
targets (in addition to large-scale decarbonization efforts).
This first deployment of Ebb’s system comes shortly after the company
announced its Series A
<https://cts.businesswire.com/ct/CT?id=smartlink&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.businesswire.com%2Fnews%2Fhome%2F20230419005661%2Fen%2FEbb-Carbon-Raises-20-million-Series-A-the-largest-investment-in-ocean-based-carbon-removal-technology-to-date&esheet=53542552&newsitemid=20230821282579&lan=en-US&anchor=Series+A&index=9&md5=6ef6c630ed1c7fe35f84e59aae5c2c81>
investment
round. Since that announcement in April, Ebb has added a number of
additional funders to the round, including the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative
(via a strategic program investment) and Propeller.
*Partner Quotes*
“We hope Ebb Carbon's technology could help remove CO2 from the atmosphere
as well as ease ocean acidification locally,” said Brendan Carter, a
University of Washington research scientist working with NOAA's Pacific
Marine Environmental Laboratory on seawater carbon chemistry. “We are
excited to test the method at the PNNL facility.”
“Although rising temperatures are harming oceans, oceans are a powerful
ally in combatting climate change,” said Jan Mazurek, Senior Director of
Carbon Dioxide Removal, ClimateWorks Foundation. “ClimateWorks is pleased
to join federal partners and the University of Washington to ensure that
emerging marine carbon dioxide removal approaches are safe to marine life,
coastal communities, and Indigenous peoples, and help foster conditions for
ongoing innovation that creates new clean energy jobs.”
*Source: Ebb Carbon & **BusinessWire*
Achim Hoffmann <ac...@woxon.com>: Aug 22 07:48AM
Similar but not the same at first sight as they don’t seem to be adding anything else into the ocean, such as ground up rocks.
They seem to want to piggy-back on existing desalination installations (and with that reduce CAPEX needs, such as pumps).
It makes sense as you will already have increased salt concentrations and be closer to the solubility concentration of the carbonates which then causes precipitation in the higher pH Chamber of their process.
Question is what happens with the carbonates and if- once they drop back into the ocean again where they will face a lower pH- they can dissolve again.
With these techs I personally see the real opportunity in the lower pH chamber where you might get co2 gas release that you can capture. Obviously, you then need to have a strategy about what to do with the pure co2, but that is then the same question many DAC processes are facing.
The piggy-back on the other hand also caps the future capacity extension as it will be constraint by existing desalination installations (or other water processing plants), similar to the CCS discussion vs DAC.
I can’t see anything groundbreaking here, but you would not necessarily put your secret sauce on the webpage, you might find that with an IP search.
With all these “new” techs, the advancements are usually marginal (but sometimes bring the key enabling step). Very often it is just the fact that a few guys actually “do” it, what many academics only thought about.
They seem to use a membrane process at the core which in my head instantly adds OPEX as they need to be serviced/cleaned/replaced over time, especially if they are playing close to the solubility limits. Electrochemical membranes are not cheap.
They will also need electricity.
What I see as a positive is the list of partners as they represent all the established names in this area.
Would I put my money behind this? They would have to surprise me in tech DD with a clear scientific advancement that addresses my concerns above.
Sent from Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>
________________________________
From: 'Doug Grandt' via Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC) <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 22, 2023 1:39:47 AM
To: Carbon Dioxide Removal <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>; NOAC <noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; healthy-planet-action-coalition <healthy-planet-...@googlegroups.com>; Planetary Restoration <planetary-...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net>; anto...@ceaconsulting.com <anto...@ceaconsulting.com>; jan...@gmail.com <jan...@gmail.com>; Ron Baiman <rpba...@gmail.com>; John Nissen <johnnis...@gmail.com>
Subject: Ebb Carbon at Sequim facility, Dept of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)
Anybody aware of Ebb Carbon?
(Shared with me by a cousin formerly of Nebraska, recently having relocated to Irvine, CA within the pathway of Hilary.)
<https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/carbon-capture/ebb-carbon-wants-to-pull-co2-from-the-sky-with-electricity-and-seawater>
[The-Ebb-System-at-PNNL-Sequim-2-copy.jpeg]
Ebb Carbon wants to pull CO2 from the sky with electricity and…<https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/carbon-capture/ebb-carbon-wants-to-pull-co2-from-the-sky-with-electricity-and-seawater>
canarymedia.com<https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/carbon-capture/ebb-carbon-wants-to-pull-co2-from-the-sky-with-electricity-and-seawater>
The California startup is operating a first-of-a-kind system at a Pacific coast lab to bring more scientific certainty to nascent ocean carbon removal.
21 August 2023
Excerpt 1
The California-based company recently began operating its novel “marine carbon dioxide removal” system at the Sequim facility, which is run by the Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory<https://www.pnnl.gov/> (PNNL). Ebb’s technology uses electrochemistry to split saltwater into its acidic and alkaline parts. The long-term plan is to return alkalinity to the ocean, creating chemical reactions that pull CO2 from the air and store it safely in the sea.
Excerpt 2
On Monday, the two-year-old startup unveiled its first-of-a-kind demonstration project, which is designed to remove 100 metric tons of CO2 per year at full capacity. Along with PNNL, Ebb is partnering with research institutions such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of Washington to better predict how its system could work at scale — and how it could potentially affect ocean ecosystems.
Seems to me there were posts similar to this long ago … searched “alkalinity” and found them:
From: Antonius Gagern and Jan Mazurek
Date: February 20 & 21, 2020
Subject: [CDR] ocean CDR platform and ocean alkalinity video
To the ocean CDR community:
Please watch and widely share a video we produced with help of Greg Rau and Phil Renforth. Hopefully more videos like this one coming soon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5obQ6aGSyHY&t=3s
[Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement - 4 min animated video]
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5obQ6aGSyHY&t=3s>
[maxresdefault.jpg]
Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement (OAE) - a ClimateWorks production<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5obQ6aGSyHY&t=3s>
youtube.com<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5obQ6aGSyHY&t=3s>
Are these technically the same or similar?
Best,
Doug Grandt
Sent from my iPhone (audio texting)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Healthy Planet Action Coalition (HPAC)" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com<mailto:healthy-planet-action...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/4FEF59D3-5FCC-4270-9CFF-19F28F788CC6%40mac.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/healthy-planet-action-coalition/4FEF59D3-5FCC-4270-9CFF-19F28F788CC6%40mac.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
<rob...@rtulip.net>: Aug 22 06:48AM +1000
Healthy Planet Action Coalition meeting this Thursday August 24, 4:30 PM EDT (= 9.30 pm UK = 6.30 am Friday Australia AEST )
Meeting link is https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88954851189?pwd=WVZoeTBnN3kyZFoyLzYxZ1JNbDFPUT09
Chris Vivian: Ocean Carbon Dioxide Removal and Governance
HPAC has great pleasure in welcoming Dr Chris Vivian to present at this week’s meeting. Chris is a regular participant in discussions about effective responses to the climate crisis. His talk on Ocean Carbon Dioxide Removal and Governance will introduce these themes to open dialogue with meeting participants. Chris is a member of GESAMP, the Joint Group of Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Protection. His resume below is from http://www.gesamp.org/about/members/chris-vivian
Chris Vivian has worked for Cefas, the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, an agency of the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), and its predecessor since 1986. He received a BSc in Geology and Oceanography and a PhD in Marine Geochemistry at University College of Swansea in Wales, followed by an 18 months research fellowship at Imperial College, London. He has specialised in advising on the impact of human activities on the marine environment, particularly the disposal of wastes at sea. He has had a long involvement with the OSPAR Convention and the London Convention/London Protocol. He was the Chairman of the Scientific Groups of the London Convention and London Protocol from 2008 to 2011 and the Chairman of the OSPAR Convention’s Biodiversity Committee that dealt with species/habitat protection issues as well as the impacts of human activities from 2006 to 2010. Chris is a member of the Central Dredging Association (CEDA), the International Navigation Congress (PIANC), the Estuarine and Brackish Water Science Association (EBSA) and as a Fellow of the Institute for Marine Engineering, Science and Technology (IMAREST).
Hope to see you there
Robert Tulip
https://www.healthyplanetaction.org/
Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>: Aug 21 07:01PM
In yesterday’s election the Ecuadorian electorate voted nearly 60-40 to ban oil mining in the Amazon Basin Yasuni Rainforest Reserve, the most species rich habitat in the entire world, thus protecting its biomass from destruction as well as preventing new sources of fossil fuels. They also voted to ban metal mining in critical biodiverse areas of the Andes.
Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>: Aug 21 07:13PM
The vote to protect biomass was nearly twice that of the leading Presidential candidate!
This suggests that most people support environmental protection regardless of, or despite politics.
Environmental (and climate) protection affects everyone, and needs to avoid association with divisive political or religious groups that would distort it for their own control agendas.
On Mon, Aug 21, 2023, 12:01 PM Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org<mailto:gor...@globalcoral.org>> wrote:
In yesterday’s election the Ecuadorian electorate voted nearly 60-40 to ban oil mining in the Amazon Basin Yasuni Rainforest Reserve, the most species rich habitat in the entire world, thus protecting its biomass from destruction as well as preventing new sources of fossil fuels. They also voted to ban metal mining in critical biodiverse areas of the Andes.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com<mailto:CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com>.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/BY3PR13MB4994395AEB782D3C02617E62DD1EA%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/BY3PR13MB4994395AEB782D3C02617E62DD1EA%40BY3PR13MB4994.namprd13.prod.outlook.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>.
Geoengineering News <geoengine...@gmail.com>: Aug 21 11:47PM +0500
https://bg.copernicus.org/preprints/bg-2023-138/
*Authors*
Stephanie Delacroix, Tor Jensen Nystuen, Erik Höglund, and Andrew L. King
*Citations*: Delacroix, S., Nystuen, T. J., Höglund, E., and King, A. L.:
Biological impact of ocean alkalinity enhancement of magnesium hydroxide on
marine microalgae using bioassays simulating ship-based dispersion,
Biogeosciences Discuss. [preprint], https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-2023-138, in
review, 2023.
*Received: 15 Aug 2023 – Discussion started: 17 Aug 2023*
*Abstract*
Increasing the marine CO2 absorption capacity by adding alkaline minerals
into the world’s oceans is a promising marine carbon dioxide removal (mCDR)
approach to increase the ocean’s CO2 storage potential and mitigate ocean
acidification. Still, the biological impacts of dispersion of alkaline
minerals needs to be evaluated prior to its field deployment. In this
study, the toxicity effect on marine microalgae of two commonly used
alkaline minerals, calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2) and sodium hydroxide (NaOH),
was compared with magnesium hydroxide (Mg(OH)2), by applying the same
concentration of hydroxyl radicals (OH-) for each component. Cultures of
marine green microalgae Tetraselmis suecica were exposed to NaOH, Ca(OH)2
or Mg(OH)2 in concentrations mimicking dispersion scenarios from a ship
which included short-term exposure with high alkaline mineral concentration
called “dispersion phase” followed by a dilution and “regrowth” phase over
six days. There was no detectable effect of Mg(OH)2 treatment on algae
growth either after the dispersion phase or during the regrowth phase,
compared to control treatments. The Ca(OH)2 treatment resulted in very few
living algal cells after the dispersion phase, but a similar growth rate
was observed during the regrowth phase as was for the Mg(OH)2 and control
treatments. The NaOH treatment resulted in no surviving algae after the
dispersion phase and during the regrowth phase. Standardized whole effluent
toxicity (WET) tests were carried out with a range of Mg(OH)2
concentrations using a sensitive marine diatom, Skeletonema costatum, which
confirmed the relative low toxicity effect of Mg(OH)2. Similar biological
effects were observed on natural microalgae assemblages from a local
seawater source when applying the same Mg(OH)2 concentration range and
exposure time used in the WET tests. The results suggest that Mg(OH)2 is
relatively safe compared to Ca(OH)2 and NaOH with respect to marine
microalgae.
*Source: European Geosciences Union *
Michael Hayes <electro...@gmail.com>: Aug 21 09:31AM -0700
[...] In summary, our results show that neither *G. semen* nor *G.
echinulata* blooms were associated with decreases in *p*CO2 in two Swedish
boreal lakes. It is likely that physical factors, such as wind induced
water column mixing and import of inorganic carbon via groundwater inflow
and runoff, suppress the phytoplankton signal on *p*CO2. [...]
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-40596-6?fbclid=IwAR04nC1of4KSVKB0mRxumRnUYt7Bf1TBw266RKTJ_qx137Woq9hMRUrO2z8
MH] I suspect that forest fire smoke can also add to the shut down of this
natural CDR method in forest lakes as the smoke particals add ultra fine C
to the water. My 15 acre lake has switched to a diatom heavy biotic mix,
the lake turned from clear to brown. Not much changed over the last 30
years except far more smoke days, higher winds, warmer winters, that's all.
Laura Wasserson <la...@climitigation.org>: Aug 21 08:52AM -0700
Thank you for reaching out. I am out of the office until August 28, with
limited access to email.
If your matter is urgent and requires immediate attention please contact
fl...@climitigation.org or er...@climitigation.org.
For non-urgent matters, I will attend to your email as soon as I return. I
apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and appreciate your
understanding.
Best,
Laura
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 17:51:56 +0200, CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com
wrote:
CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com
<https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#!forum/CarbonDioxideRemoval/topics>
Groups
<https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email/#!overview>
<https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email/#!overview>
Topic digest
View all topics
<https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#!forum/CarbonDioxideRemoval/topics>
- Digest for CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com - 17 updates in 4
topics <http://#group_thread_0> - 1 Update
Digest for CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com - 17 updates in 4 topics
<http://groups.google.com/group/CarbonDioxideRemoval/t/d5e2524bf2bdd4e?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email>
Laura Wasserson <la...@climitigation.org>: Aug 21 08:51AM -0700
Thank you for reaching out. I am out of the office until August 28, with
limited access to email.
If your matter is urgent and requires immediate attention please contact
fl...@climitigation.org or er...@climitigation.org.
For non-urgent matters, I will attend to your email as soon as I return. I
apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and appreciate your
understanding.
Best,
Laura
On Mon, 21 Aug 2023 17:51:07 +0200, CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com
wrote:
CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com
<
https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#!forum/CarbonDioxideRemoval/topics
Groups
<
https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email/#!overview
<
https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email/#!overview
Topic digest
View all topics
<
https://groups.google.com/forum/?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email#!forum/CarbonDioxideRemoval/topics
- Summary of current price per kg of DAC and other CDR technologies....
<http://#group_thread_0> - 14 Updates
- Impact of wet-dry cycles on enhanced rock weathering of brucite,
wollastonite, serpentinite and kimberlite: Implications for carbon
verification <http://#group_thread_1> - 1 Update
- Alkalinity generation from carbonate weathering in a
silicate-dominated headwater catchment at Iskorasfjellet, northern Norway
<http://#group_thread_2> - 1 Update
- Direct Air Capture of CO2 Using Amine/Alumina Sorbents at Cold
Temperature <http://#group_thread_3> - 1 Update
Summary of current price per kg of DAC and other CDR technologies....
<
http://groups.google.com/group/CarbonDioxideRemoval/t/fd5503e1e11617f7?utm_source=digest&utm_medium=email
Amal Bhattarai <amalbh...@gmail.com>: Aug 20 09:27AM -0700
Www.CDR.fyi tracks commercial “current” prices for the most popular
methods; prices include the (astronomical) profit.
What the prices “should” be is too early to calculate, because many CDR
techniques have not yet been sufficiently developed or have not entered the
“marketplace”….
"Clive Elsworth" <Cl...@EndorphinSoftware.co.uk>: Aug 20 06:43PM +0100
Dan
Thanks for the ambient carbon link, which mentions using Cl2 which splits
in the presence of light. It produces HCl (and CO2 and H2O), and each Cl
atom removes one methane molecule. (BTW we’ve known David Miller several
years.)
What we have been proposing for the atmosphere is using a photocatalytic
cycle, in which each chlorine atom gets recycled many times to remove many
methane molecules – we estimate around 1000 with our latest proposed
aerosol formulation.
Solar PV and renewables
I wonder what the embedded CO2 is in this cheap solar PV? China appears
quite happy to install ever more coal power for any of its manufacturing.
RethinkX seems to think any location is suitable for renewables, which
doesn’t seem credible to me for places that are not very windy or sunny.
The cost of transmission then becomes a constraint. The mining of ever
lower grade ores to satisfy renewables’ (and the associated grid’s)
voracious appetite for resources per unit of energy generation capacity
looks ecologically damaging to me, not to mention a health hazard to those
who live nearby or work in the mines.
Moltex Energy foresee a future complementing renewables by peaking during
the troughs. They have no fear of their power stations becoming stranded
assets. They also don’t see the (for now) declining cost of lithium
batteries threatening their GridReserve heat storage. Other storage types
maybe. But heat storage in nitrate salt tanks is cheap, and they’ll just
replace those with whatever becomes cheaper.
But whether a mix of energy sources, or renewables wins out it’s good news
if energy becomes cheap all around the world, because that ought eventually
to enable the politicians to enact carbon pricing to phase out fossil
fuels. That is the important point here.
But let’s not hold our breaths, and not forget the need for immediate
cooling of the oceans.
Clive
From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <
carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Dan Miller
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2023 4:14 PM
To: Clive Elsworth <Cl...@EndorphinSoftware.co.uk>
Cc: Michael Hayes <electro...@gmail.com>; Peter Eisenberger <
peter.ei...@gmail.com>; Chris Van Arsdale <cvana...@google.com>;
Gregory Slater <ten...@gmail.com>; Carbon Dioxide Removal <
CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>; via NOAC Meetings <
noac-m...@googlegroups.com>; David S. Miller <da...@ambientcarbon.com>
Subject: [CDR] Re: 20 point plan
See my responses in blue.
On Aug 20, 2023, at 3:25 AM, Clive Elsworth <Cl...@EndorphinSoftware.co.uk
<mailto:Cl...@EndorphinSoftware.co.uk> > wrote:
Dan
Thanks for your 20-point plan. Questions and comments:
1. How can new fossil fuel infrastructure be banned in China or any country
other than your own? - It’s a *global* plan.
2. For fee and dividend to work it must essentially be global, which means
either sufficiently strong border adjustment inducements, or going straight
to a global carbon price, preferably also rising gradually. That would
incentivise development of cost-effective, zero carbon power sources like
nothing else. - yes, F&D should be global & can be via boarder adjustments.
See my TEDx talk: https://youtu.be/0k2-SzlDGko
3. I don’t see in your list a plan to ‘fast track’ the development of
Generation 4 nuclear power, some of which is estimated to generate
electricity cheaper than fossil fuels: $35/MWh baseload, $54/MWh peaked
i.e. driven from heat storage. Some can also supply ~800oC process heat for
around $10/MWh. The capital cost is ~$2/Watt or probably less. Currently
the First of a Kind reactor is expected to begin operating in the UK around
2030 (the MoltexFLEX reactor). - Nuclear is safe, but it is much more
expensive than renewables and takes much longer to install. By the time
that Gen4/SMR are available, solar PV will cost $0.01/kWh and batteries
will cost a fraction of what they do now (which is 10% of what they cost
10~15 years ago). See: https://www.rethinkx.com/energy
4. It’s great to see you listing funding for R&D into solar radiation
management. We believe there is great scope for doing that in the
troposphere by increasing the amount of haze and brightening clouds, mainly
in the tropics and subtropics. Cooling the oceans where they are hottest
would cool the rest of them, including the polar regions. - With an AMOC
collapse *expected* around mid-century, we are going to need to fast track
SMR deployment!
5. Do you have a cost estimate for plugging all methane leaks? <
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-drilling-abandoned-specialreport-idUSKBN23N1NL
Reuters estimates there are around 29 million abandoned oil/gas world
internationally, and more than 3.2 million in the USA. - I don’t have a
cost estimate for plugging the leaks but I am quite sure the cost is much
less than the cost of *not* plugging them!
6. What about the main methane sources, which are wetlands and agriculture,
with melting permafrost likely increasing to become significant, not to
mention the threat of shallow seabed melting permafrost? - That’s bad too
and it is one of the reasons we need to deploy SMR soon!
7. Are you open to the idea of enhancing the natural atmospheric methane
sink? The putative description of part of this mechanism done by chlorine
radicals from dust particles in the Oeste et al 2017 paper was recently
measured and described here:
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2303974120. Mimicking this mechanism
would (subject to further testing and modelling) also remove other oxidable
short-lived climate forcing agents, the main other ones being tropospheric
ozone and black carbon aerosol. Research is ongoing into this, but we could
sure use more funding. - I haven’t looked into that specifically, but my
brother runs a company that mimics the natural destruction of methane in
order to eradicate methane from low-concentration sources:
https://ambientcarbon.com
Clive
From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <mailto:
carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> <
carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <mailto:
carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> > On Behalf Of Dan Miller
Sent: Sunday, August 20, 2023 3:56 AM
To: Michael Hayes <electro...@gmail.com <mailto:electro...@gmail.com
Cc: Peter Eisenberger <peter.ei...@gmail.com <mailto:
peter.ei...@gmail.com> >; Chris Van Arsdale <cvana...@google.com
<mailto:cvana...@google.com> >; Gregory Slater <ten...@gmail.com
<mailto:ten...@gmail.com> >; Carbon Dioxide Removal <
CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [CDR] Summary of current price per kg of DAC and other CDR
technologies....
I would suggest that current numbers for cost of CDR are not meaningful.
These are numbers for kiloton per year capture vs. the needed gigaton per
year (1,000,000X more). Learning curves should bring the cost down by about
an order of magnitude or more.
And I don’t understand the discussion of “cost effectiveness” for CDR. It’s
bit like asking about the cost effectiveness of heart bypass surgery.
Without it, you’re dead. How do you calculate the ROI?
The bottom line is that the cost of doing CDR at scale (I estimate it’s
$2T/year for -40 Gt/y) is much less than the cost of *not* doing it. So,
from that point of view, it’s very cost effective.
And, no, there is not a tradeoff between CDR and emissions reduction using
renewable energy. An emissions reduction only approach leads to >2ºC
warming which is catastrophic. So CDR is required on top of the most
aggressive emissions reduction we can muster. Emissions reduction only also
leads to an AMOC collapse around mid-century, so SRM is also required.
I notice that a lot of the negative discussion around CDR recently assumes
we will not have any serious policy to fight climate change. That is why
they think a dollar spent on CDR is a dollar not spent on RE. They also
worry that CDR will give FF companies more social license to continue their
business. It’s like we are asking FF companies to "pretty please" reduce
their business. This makes sense since we currently have no serious policy
in place to fight climate change and we continue to choose to fail, as
Kevin Anderson puts it. Well, I have news for everyone. If we continue to
choose to fail, we will fail!
But we can choose to succeed and put serious policies in place to quickly
phase out fossil fuels, scale up CDR, and get going with SRM. Notice that I
didn’t mention RE there. If we phase out FF, then RE will take its place.
No need to subsidize it (which results in more RE than we need).
Once again, here is my suggested 20-point policy plan to fight climate
change, in case we choose to succeed.
Dan
On Aug 19, 2023, at 8:48 PM, Michael Hayes <electro...@gmail.com
<mailto:electro...@gmail.com> > wrote:
Peter, et al.,
The NOAA mCDR team is already doing a deep evaluation of mCDR methods. If
anything, they are creating a template for non mCDR methods to follow.
Best regards
On Sat, Aug 19, 2023, 5:11 PM Peter Eisenberger <peter.ei...@gmail.com
<mailto:peter.ei...@gmail.com> > wrote:
Thanks for the reference. I looked at the DACCS evaluation and noted
the comment that it lacked any co benefits that would enhance its adoption.
I wrote a paper in 2012 that showed that DACUS ( eg use and storage ) would
provide such co benefits
turning it from a cost to a profitable equitable and sustainable approach
to climate change protection
https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.14976
I do applaud their efforts because it is exactly what is needed so as to
focus our efforts on the most
promising approaches - time is a critical factor and we need a coordinated
effort to scale the most promising
approaches. We need to come together and carry out an independent
assessment with the best experts of the many approaches
and provide the policy makers with a technical assessment that can guide
their policy efforts.
On Sat, Aug 19, 2023 at 3:08 PM 'Chris Van Arsdale' via Carbon Dioxide
Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com <mailto:
CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com> > wrote:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/acacb3/pdf
... not that everyone agrees with those numbers.
On Sat, Aug 19, 2023 at 2:52 PM Gregory Slater <ten...@gmail.com <mailto:
ten...@gmail.com> > wrote:
Hello All,
Could someone point me to a good 'spreadsheet-like' summary of the current
price per kg of CO2 removal for the various CDR technologies/methods? Also
interested in a 'time per kg' (removal timescale, including the time it
takes to build out the infrastructure) for all CDR technologies.
Thanks for any help,
Greg Slater
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com <mailto:
CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com> .
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/1f05b81a-4a2c-4914-a824-ba1f7764aff3n%40googlegroups.com
<
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/1f05b81a-4a2c-4914-a824-ba1f7764aff3n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com <mailto:
CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com> .
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CADzNRbYAprTv658Q3hHEa5jTdbzA_s3F7YKoHjhSZ6OH-f1haQ%40mail.gmail.com
<
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CADzNRbYAprTv658Q3hHEa5jTdbzA_s3F7YKoHjhSZ6OH-f1haQ%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer
.
--
CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: This email message and all attachments contain
You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages