RD&D priorities for carbon dioxide removal in the United States

[Greg Rau]

>
> http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa08f/meta
>
“Key enablers for successful programs include embracing technological diversity and administrative efficiency, fostering agency buy-in, and achieving commercial deployment. Based on these criteria, the executive branch could effectively coordinate RD&D strategy through two complementary pathways: 1) renewing intra-agency commitment to CDR in five primary agencies, including both research and demonstration, and 2) coordinating research prioritization and outcomes across agencies, led by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and loosely based on the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Both pathways can be stimulated by executive order or Congressional mandate. Executive branch implementation can begin at any time; future Farm and Energy Bills provide legislative vehicles for enhancing programs.”

[Ronal W. Larson]

List ,  cc Greg

1.  Thanks for the link.  

The title and main author for this brand new (non-fee) paper are:

"Federal research, development, and demonstration priorities for carbon dioxide removal in the United States "

   To cite this article before publication: Daniel Lucio Sanchez et al 2017 Environ. Res. Lett. in press https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa08f

or http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa08f/pdf

2.  I have read Dr.  Sanchez thesis (on BECCS) at UC Berkeley, not given here es a cite, but also useful to this list.  This present paper has biochar a little.

3.  This would be helpful to US Congressional staff aides responsible for looking out for new legislation.  And for those of us who are trying to reach those same Congress-persons and their staffs.    (I’ve been at both ends of that ritual.)

4.   Two soil-related (hence biochar-related) cites near the end of the article’s list of references stood out for me, as I had missed them (as they aren’t specifically on biochar):

a.    “ USDA Building Blocks for Climate Smart Agriculture and Forestry”,  May 2016 

https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/building-blocks-implementation-plan-progress-report.pdf

The word “biochar” is here a little, but the word “sequestration” is a lot.   As Dr.  Sanchez has noted, USDA is the main US agency funding biochar research -  a good bit more than in the Sanchez paper. There are many USDA staff papers and conference presentations on biochar - to be found at the IBI website.

b.  “THE STATE AND FUTURE OF U.S. SOILS  -  Framework for a Federal Strategic Plan for Soil Science”  (December 2016)

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ssiwg_framework_december_2016.pdf

This is not available at the Sanchez-provided White House site!  Pretty clear the present White House wouldn’t be happy with anything dated December 2016.  This coming from John Holdren’s office.  Nothing much new in the text - but several really good biochar-related graphics at the end. The word “biochar” is not here.

 

5.  The article’s focus is mainly on US CDR activity.  For biochar, this misses many policy options already happening in other countries (and in some states).   The US has had a lot of work on biochar, but less than half now.  China is going to clean our clock again - just as with wind and PV.   See http://www.biochar-international.org/node/8858 for 5-year biochar goals in China.

6.  I hope someone can get this article’s message to the Trump White House:  Biochar is a technology that perfectly fits those states that elected him.

Ron

On Dec 20, 2017, at 10:49 PM, Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa08f/meta

“Key enablers for successful programs include embracing technological diversity and administrative efficiency, fostering agency buy-in, and achieving commercial deployment. Based on these criteria, the executive branch could effectively coordinate RD&D strategy through two complementary pathways: 1) renewing intra-agency commitment to CDR in five primary agencies, including both research and demonstration, and 2) coordinating research prioritization and outcomes across agencies, led by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and loosely based on the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Both pathways can be stimulated by executive order or Congressional mandate. Executive branch implementation can begin at any time; future Farm and Energy Bills provide legislative vehicles for enhancing programs.”

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/CarbonDioxideRemoval.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/DC87FBB0-343F-4AE3-993A-CD0B2A146C24%40sbcglobal.net.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Robert Tulip]

_{This piece on CDR priorities, Federal research, development, and demonstration priorities for carbon dioxide removal in the United States, opens some very interesting political questions on strategic directions, as much through what it excludes as what it includes.} 

_{The first sentence, “CDR technologies may be critical to achieving deep decarbonization,” surprised me for two reasons.  Firstly, CDR is commonly counter-posed against decarbonisation, which is more associated with emission reduction.  Removing carbon from the air does not remove carbon from the economy, so the sense in which they think CDR might be “critical” to decarbonisation is not clear, and I could not see where they explain it.}  

_{Secondly, a realistic statement of priorities could usefully note that decarbonisation is completely rejected by the Trump Administration.  Quite a few climate lobbyists do not see any points of dialogue with Trump.  If that is what these authors think, they could be clear about it, and set the priority as removing Trump from the White House.  But they don’t make that call, instead leaving that inference up to the reader, as though they are talking in code.  In terms of priorities, it is not clear if they see partisan politics as more important than any immediate effort to achieve climate results in the context of the Trump Presidency.} 

_{All their readers well know that the Trump Administration is opposed to the concept of decarbonisation, which is the leading idea in the war on coal that is central to the Paris Accord.  So it would make sense in a priority document to recognise the need to engage in policy debate with the current dominant group, rather than simply ignoring them.  To get a view of how decarbonisation is contested as a “miserable fantasy”, see this comment from Nigel Lawson.  But these authors just ignore that entire line of thought.  They therefore seem to signal, as far as I can tell, that they are not interested in dialogue with the current administration on climate change, but consider that campaigning for the 2020 election, with a ‘decarbonisation President’, is the only viable strategy.  They confirm this partisan mentality by saying “Recently, the White House Mid-Century Strategy for Deep Decarbonization affirmed the role that CDR can play in US mitigation efforts through 2050 (The White House, 2016)”.  No mention that this policy, released in the last days of the Obama Presidency, has been rejected by the current President, and is not available on the White House website, but only from the Government of California.} 

_{They say “executive branch implementation can begin at any time”, but that reads as little more than a political dig at Trump who has expressed his complete opposition to their strategy.  Readers here may share this partisan outlook of horror at Trump.  The attitude that it will all go away may be a psychological comfort, but there is at least some prospect that Trump will win in 2020, so a CDR priority document that does not discuss politics seems to miss some main issues.}

_{Formulating CDR priorities and strategies should engage the problem of what conservatives will allow and agree to.  The political barriers to achieving decarbonisation and CDR are reflected in Trump’s withdrawal from Paris.  There is also a fact-based conversation about climate change that questions the assumption that the Paris Accord is central.  That conversation is led by commentators such as Bjorn Lomborg, with his empirical observation that Paris only achieves 1% of the carbon removal needed for climate stability, and the focus needs to shift from renewable subsidies to R&D into new technology.  Unfortunately, Lomborg is despised by the political left, so his analysis gets ignored by ad hominem reasoning.}

_{I was further surprised in this CDR priority document by the lack of any mention of ocean based carbon removal.  There may be potential for ocean based technology to remove carbon on a larger scale than total emissions, and even make the concept of decarbonisation unnecessary for climate stability.} 

_{The document has a strong focus on government, and do not express a clear view on the role of private enterprise.  Despite mentioning commercial deployment, and relevance for civil society, they have nothing to say about cooperation with business.  There is no mention of public-private partnership as part of the strategy.  What about cooperation with the fossil fuel industry on carbon removal?  Obviously that is not something they see as a priority, but it might be useful to discuss why, without descending into ideology. On the same theme of private enterprise, they list five main functions that federal agencies can do to progress carbon removal but make no mention of mobilising commercial finance or cooperation with industry.  I would have thought that should be a priority.}

_{Continuing this impression of a concealed partisan agenda, in the barriers to coordination, there is no mention of political ideology as a barrier, even though ideology can often be a primary barrier to government cooperation with the private sector.  Ideology is a barrier to CDR full stop, with the assumption in many parts of the climate lobby that carbon removal undermines incentive to achieve emission reduction.}

_{Robert Tulip}

---

From: Greg Rau <gh...@sbcglobal.net>
To: Carbon Dioxide Removal <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, 21 December 2017, 16:49
Subject: [CDR] RD&D priorities for carbon dioxide removal in the United States

>

> http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaa08f/meta

>

“Key enablers for successful programs include embracing technological diversity and administrative efficiency, fostering agency buy-in, and achieving commercial deployment. Based on these criteria, the executive branch could effectively coordinate RD&D strategy through two complementary pathways: 1) renewing intra-agency commitment to CDR in five primary agencies, including both research and demonstration, and 2) coordinating research prioritization and outcomes across agencies, led by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and loosely based on the National Nanotechnology Initiative. Both pathways can be stimulated by executive order or Congressional mandate. Executive branch implementation can begin at any time; future Farm and Energy Bills provide legislative vehicles for enhancing programs.”

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.

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

[voglerlake]

The concept that the use of marine C removal makes decarbonization unnecessary is not supportable. Emissions reduction is critical.

Beyond the C math, there is a list of non C pollutants which are toxic in ways which compromise soil biology and thus the C cycle. Acidic rain being the prime example with mercury being another.

I obviously support marine C being convert to biochar yet the use of the promise of such tech to greenwash FFs is not appropriate at any scientific, engineering, or environmental level.

Tulip's position that marine C removal is a free pass for FF emissions is obviously political in nature and not based on science. As experience shows, at the political level anything can be twisted into a grotesque configuration.

[Robert Tulip]

Carbon Removal and Emission Reduction

How pleasing to be able to completely agree with at least one statement from a leading contributor to this discussion board, Michael Hayes (Vogler Lake).

Michael says in a recent comment that “experience shows, at the political level anything can be twisted.”  I agree.  That is exactly why it is so difficult to have a serious conversation about facts regarding climate change.  People tend to either simply ignore the facts emphasised by their opponents, or to distort their real meaning. 

So for example, climate activists distort the observation that all the emission reductions agreed at Paris would remove only 1% of anthropogenic carbon from the air.  Activists tend either to ignore this fact, or twist it into what Michael calls “a grotesque political caricature.”  Some have even suggested this fact must be denied because a focus on the remaining 99% of anthropogenic carbon not covered by Paris INDCs offers a free pass for fossil fuels.  Such distortion seems necessary to retain the political focus on emission reduction alone as the primary answer to climate change.

I also agree with Michael’s campaign against mercury from coal. However, the answer to this problem might involve a path that does not close the coal industry.  A more effective and sustainable and achievable solution might be to work in cooperation with industries that are causing the problems.

Coal remains the top world electricity source. IEA’s latest report, Coal 2017, states “Coal’s share in the global energy mix is forecast to decline from 27% in 2016 to 26% in 2022 on sluggish demand growth relative to other fuels. Growth through 2022 is concentrated in India, Southeast Asia and a few other countries in Asia.”  

Against this momentum, the argument that climate protection requires a war on coal involves political polarisation.  In this context, causing conflict makes achieving effective results more difficult.  By contrast, cooperation with the fossil fuel industry has potential to shift technology to sustainable outcomes.  Cooperation could engage the resources, skills, contacts and funds of industries that are now ambivalent at best about addressing climate change.

Developing low cost carbon removal methods on a larger scale than total emissions could build upon a range of chemical processing methods.  Common industrial processes in fossil fuel combustion, waste combustion, waste water cleaning, cement production and agriculture are negative geoengineering methods, worsening climate change.  The answer might not be to reduce human influence on the climate, but rather to balance these large economic sources of pollution with positive geoengineering methods.  Pessimistic claims about engineering possibilities for climate protection can create barriers to achieving needed change. 

For example, scientists argue that mercury emissions in flue gas could be removed by biochar absorption and permanent ocean burial, through chemical processes involving chlorine or bromine and chemical fixation of mercury to the char as cinnabar.  In sanitation, activated biochar could improve waste water cleaning by removing toxic chemicals, drugs and biocides.

Emphasising political polarisation can hinder calm dialogue about such policies. The risk in shifting away from fossil fuels is a loss of focus on such practical incremental ways to reduce pollution.

My view is that the most promising method to remove carbon is Iron Salt Aerosol.  ISA plumes over one third of the ocean surface, 100 million km², at the rate of one milligram of soluble iron per square metre, would appear to be a safe and effective climate protection measure, according to this paper.  This iron dose could induce annual phytoplankton CO2 drawdown above 2 g/m², at the conservative calculated Fe:C ratio of 1:2000.  At that rate, one hundred thousand tons of iron, diffused safely through shipping exhaust rather than marine dumping, could remove about one billion tons of CO2 at a cost of about $5 per tonne, less than one tenth the estimated costs for BECCS.  Iron aerosol cost is even lower when its cooling effects from removing methane, HCFCs and other dangerous greenhouse gasses are factored in. 

Subject to scientific verification through field tests, ISA deployment could be supported by shipping, insurance, tourism, fishing and mining industries.  But such progress toward climate stability won’t be delivered by advocates who use ideological language criticising the business community.  Cooperation with the private sector is the only way to achieve climate results.

Robert Tulip

[voglerlake]

I'm happy you found happiness.

However, to the facts, all attempts to clean up coal have failed and will fail.

That is not political ideology.

Institutional investors as well as sovereign funds are divesting out of fossil fuels in general and specifically from coal.

That is not political ideology.

The investors inside the fossil fuel industry are moving towards gas and away from coal due to the political instabilities surrounding coal.

That is not political ideology.

Can you be happy with these facts?

[voglerlake]

If coal wants a hand in survival, as it is in need of such, I recommend that the coal reserve owners quietly repurpose their investments and skills to building self-sustaining maritime communities.

There will be far more sustainable profits in oceanic infrastructure then there will be digging in the ground for a product which is toxic on just about every level that the average person can list.

In brief, I'm recommending that the horse buggy whip manufacturers start looking into manufacturing spark plugs. Eventually, they may wish to look at 21st century tech as well.

[Michael Hayes]

This is not radical environmental political ideology. This is a fact:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/jan/10/new-york-city-plans-to-divest-5bn-from-fossil-fuels-and-sue-oil-companies?CMP=share_btn_fb

Michael Hayes

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/CarbonDioxideRemoval/SpPDsBsG8Lo/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to CarbonDioxideRemoval+unsub...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to CarbonDioxideRemoval@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/CarbonDioxideRemoval.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/f5af7212-5d11-4ab6-9c1e-e0336aa7e9b5%40googlegroups.com.

[Greg Rau]

Michael,

Please keep your posts relevant to CDR.

Thanks,

Greg

Sent from my iPhone

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.

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

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/CarbonDioxideRemoval.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAN16ArBJ3DH1XsUnO-nH8y2B8X2JuAfBQ62O1D%3D-iJvudN-W5Q%40mail.gmail.com.