RE: [CDR] CDR Modeled in MAGICC to return to preindustrial temperatures by 2100 - credible emissions projections are also needed.
Bruce Parker
Hi Clive –
I have been thinking about your statement that “credible emissions projections are also needed.” One place to start is with the projections of the EIA, IEA, and Climate Action Tracker. They all expect that greenhouse gas emission will likely increase for the next 10-30 years. Based on their projections a reasonable planning number for future CO2 emissions could be in the range 1,500 -3,000 GTCO2 (see attached “A “Planning Number” for Cumulative Anthropogenic CO2 Emissions from 2020 Through 2100”).
However, CDR projections also require a number of other assumptions. Here is a partial list:
# | Assumption For | My Estimate |
1 | 2100 Temperature increase target (with post-2019 CO2 budget of 400 GT CO2) | 1.5°C |
2 | US responsibility for global CCS and CDR costs needed to reach a specific temperature increase target | 20-25% |
3 | Annual funding to help developing countries to either mitigate GHG emissions or for CDR in order to reach “net-zero CO2 emissions” (not likely to happen) | $1Trillion |
4 | Cumulative gross anthropogenic CO2 emissions 2020 through 2100 (excludes CCS and CDR) | 2000 |
5 | Cumulative CO2e emissions from natural feedbacks 2020 through 2100 (above that which was used to calculate the IPCC CO2 budgets) | 500 |
6 | CO2e from non-CO2 radiative forcing (CH4, N2O, aerosols, albedo, deforestation, etc.) above that which was used to calculate the IPCC CO2 budgets | 500 |
7 | Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) | 4.0 |
8 | Average CCS and CDR costs in 2050 (and how steep - or shallow - the “cost learning curves” will be) | $100 |
Based on the above assumptions, the total “carbon dioxide removal requirement” is likely to be between 1,500 and 3,000 GTCO2 at a cost of between $150 and $300 Trillion (of which the US would be responsible for $30-60 Trillion).
I’ve included details of the assumptions in the attached “A “Planning Number” for the CO2 Removal Requirement from 2020 Through 2100 (DRAFT)”
I’d really appreciate suggestions for improving both documents.
Thanks!
Bruce Parker
From: 'Clive Elsworth' via Carbon Dioxide Removal [mailto:CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2023 10:26 PM
To: David Hawkins; Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas; Shannon A. Fiume; Tom Goreau; Robert Chris; carbondiox...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [CDR] CDR Modeled in MAGICC to return to preindustrial temperatures by 2100
Yes, for CDR projections to have any meaning credible emissions projections are also needed.
For example, China recently announced permits to build an additional 106 GW of coal-fired power. Given that China wants to become the dominant supplier of batteries and EVs I wonder how much of that is to provide energy for the additional ore refining of lithium and other metals.
On 01/05/2023 02:42 BST David Hawkins <dahaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
For most tech CDR you have to provide energy to operate. If that is supplied by fossil fuels you greatly reduce the net benefits of the CDR.
Get Outlook for iOS
From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas <bme...@earthlink.net>
Sent: Sunday, April 30, 2023 9:37:20 PM
To: Shannon A. Fiume <sha...@autofracture.com>; Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>; Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>; CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [CDR] CDR Modeled in MAGICC to return to preindustrial temperatures by 2100
Shannon,
You say, "we must get to zero emissions largely by emissions reductions." Why not all CDR (negative emissions) instead of cessation? My point is your scenarios do not include a continuation of future emissions with CDR greater than what you have already in your scenarios so that the final outcome is the same ppm restoration.
Negative emissions is also confusing to many and really I wish we would use other terms. The negative emissions concept has too many moving parts that have counter-meanings: First we must reduce emissions, or create CDR to compensate for emissions cessation of hard to decarbonize sectors. Then after enough cessation and compensating we achieve net zero, then and only then can we go negative with emissions. A no emissions cessation scenario can restore to exactly the same ppm GHG as one with emissions cessation and or compensating credits, by removing more from the sky instead of cessation and or compensation of future emissions. Your statement is valid for the scenarios you looked at, but not for a continued emissions scenario that you did not look at.
And we get bonus points for this continued emissions scenario too because cessation is distinctly different, novel, and as history shows, much more difficult than CDR with mature industrial strategies. Plus further bonus points, we only have to remove half of what is emitted because half of emissions are absorbed by Earth system. Their re-emissions mostly do not start until we reach biosphere/atmosphere equilibrium, then they are slow and a substantial portion are permanently sequestered and or long-term storage. Because time is of the essence, by the time re-emissions get rolling well, we will have a huge CDR infrastructure that doesn't have a lot remaining to do in the sky because most excess GHGs will already be removed.
When you say, "The present volume of yearly emissions and the historic burden of anthropogenic carbon is too large to not devote maximal effort to emissions reductions," this is your opinion. It follows along exactly with all of the evaluated IPCC scenarios with AR6, but still it is not fact because it is arbitrary. And the burden in the sky -linear math for a 20 year restoration scenario, is twice the amount of emissions reductions to reach net zero. Costs too are poorly represented in findings because renewable energy is now a third the cost of fossil energy assumptions, and because Socolow 2011 and House 2011 assumed enthalpy backwards and used other poor process assumptions (Realff and Eisenberger 2012, Van Norden 2011, and Holmes and Keith 2012). These citations are still in use today despite the rebuttals.
Fundamentally though, all the biases in CDR aside, a continued emissions scenario can achieve the same restoration, but CDR must be greater.
Steep trails,
B
Bruce Melton PE
Director, Climate Change Now Initiative, 501c3
President, Melton Engineering Services Austin
8103 Kirkham Drive
Austin, Texas 78736
(512)799-7998
ClimateDiscovery.org
ClimateChangePhoto.org
MeltonEngineering.com
Face...@Bruce.Melton.395
Inst...@Bruce.C.Melton
The Band Climate Change
Twitter - BruceCMelton1On 4/30/2023 4:25 PM, Shannon A. Fiume wrote:
Tom et al.,
The preferred most impactful measure to allow scaled CDR to be most impactful, is getting to zero emissions. In the context of seeking a cooler climate than the present, (or some day in the future deciding to seek a cooler climate), for CDR to be effective, we must get to zero emissions largely by emissions reductions.
The present volume of yearly emissions and the historic burden of anthropogenic carbon is too large to not devote maximal effort to emissions reductions. If we want to hold the door open to do climate restoration post zero emissions, we need to have reduced emissions as fast as possible to avoid tipping points and any unknown unintended consequences causing warming. Caveat is this type of experiment needs to be repeated on an ensemble of ESMs (as MAGICC doesn't emulate tipping points nor newer climate dynamics: ice loss, permafrost, etc.)
Was that not clear in the paper?
I have one more edit to go before I publish, as right now its a nonpeer reviewed paper on Eartharxiv. (I'll end up doing minor tightening of the abstract, additional context of nonco2 ghg phaseouts, repackage conclusion to include need for immediate FF phaseout that are currently buried within the text for nonclimate sci readers.)
Thanks!
~~sa
On 4/30/23 12:31 PM, Tom Goreau wrote:
Shannon can clarify, but if she found that without continued emissions there was still no CDR pathway towards stability at safe levels that avoided overshoot, then stronger measures are needed than CDR alone?
Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef AllianceChief Scientist, Blue Regeneration SL
President, Biorock Technology Inc.Technical Advisor, Blue Guardians Programme, SIDS DOCK
37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139
gor...@globalcoral.org
www.globalcoral.org
Skype: tomgoreau
Tel: (1) 617-864-4226 (leave message)
Books:
Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392
Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734
No one can change the past, everybody can change the future
It’s much later than we think, especially if we don’t think
Those with their heads in the sand will see the light when global warming and sea level rise wash the beach away
Geotherapy: Regenerating ecosystem services to reverse climate change
From: "Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas" <bme...@earthlink.net>
Date: Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 3:18 PM
To: Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>, Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>, "CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com" <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [CDR] CDR Modeled in MAGICC to return to preindustrial temperatures by 2100
Tom,
Shannon did not model a scenario with continued emissions, so it cannot be said that both removal and emissions cessation are required, as you suggest, "that climate stabilization at safe levels without dangerous overshoot is fundamentally impossible with continued fossil fuel use."
"Abstract
Experimental test of the theory proposed in an Alternative Method to Determine a Carbon Dioxide Removal Target. The multi-step experiment explores halting anthropogenic emissions from greenhouse gases and removing all historic cumulative anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions in less than a hundred years to match the preindustrial temperature. ..."Where the abstract states, "Contrary to the prior proposed theory all anthropogenic emissions (from both fossil fuels and land-use change) needed to be removed to realize the final temperature of nearly 0ºC," is unclear to me, because a continued emissions scenario was not modeled. Fundamentally, to compensate for continued emissions in a continued emissions scenario, simply devise the scenario to remove a compensating amount of GHGs.
https://eartharxiv.org/repository/view/5300/
Steep trails,
B
Bruce Melton PE
Director, Climate Change Now Initiative, 501c3
President, Melton Engineering Services Austin
8103 Kirkham Drive
Austin, Texas 78736
(512)799-7998
ClimateDiscovery.org
ClimateChangePhoto.org
MeltonEngineering.com
Face...@Bruce.Melton.395
Inst...@Bruce.C.Melton
The Band Climate Change
Twitter - BruceCMelton1On 4/30/2023 12:58 PM, Tom Goreau wrote:
Shannon can clarify on the assumed boundary conditions, but the simulation shows a century of misery in any scenario without albedo enhancement or direct temperature modification by increased Evapotranspiration (ET) or Ocean Thermodynamic Geoengineering (TG).
Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef AllianceChief Scientist, Blue Regeneration SL
President, Biorock Technology Inc.Technical Advisor, Blue Guardians Programme, SIDS DOCK
37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139
gor...@globalcoral.org
www.globalcoral.org
Skype: tomgoreau
Tel: (1) 617-864-4226 (leave message)
Books:
Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392
Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734
No one can change the past, everybody can change the future
It’s much later than we think, especially if we don’t think
Those with their heads in the sand will see the light when global warming and sea level rise wash the beach away
Geotherapy: Regenerating ecosystem services to reverse climate change
From: Robert Chris <robert...@gmail.com>
Date: Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 1:50 PM
To: "CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com" <CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com>, Tom Goreau <gor...@globalcoral.org>
Subject: Re: [CDR] CDR Modeled in MAGICC to return to preindustrial temperatures by 2100
Tom
Unless I'm mistaken, this simulation does not include any albedo enhancement and assumes that all the work is being done in the management of LWR. If that's so, it doesn't really help us that much because the task of reaching net zero by the mid-2020s, as contemplated here, is demonstrably unrealistic, whether we continue to use fossil fuels or not.
Am I missing something?
Regards
Robert
On 30/04/2023 13:21, Tom Goreau wrote:
Shannon, thanks for this great simulation (below) showing that climate stabilization at safe levels without dangerous overshoot is fundamentally impossible with continued fossil fuel use!
It’s interesting to see how the greatest volcanic explosions over the last 200 years, such as Gunung Tambora, Gunung Krakatau, and Gunung Agung had such strong but ephemeral albedo effects on global climate, showing clearly that stratospheric aerosol cooling must be applied continuously, forever, to have the impacts desired, with all the consequences of acid rain they will cause to soil and ocean (if sulfates are used). On the other hand sustained Arctic ice recovery could have a permanent albedo effect without permanently damaging life on land and sea.
On the other hand, those proposing direct cooling modifications by changing albedos neglect the very large local cooling caused by regenerating evapotranspiration cycles of intact forests. 40 years ago we found that loss of evapotranspiration by Amazonian clearcutting resulted in up to 10-14 C daily warming of soil and air in the day as opposed to around 2-6 C in intact jungle (T. J. Goreau & W. Z. de Mello, 1985, Effects of deforestation on sources and sinks of atmospheric carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, and methane from Central Amazonian soils and biota during the dry season: a preliminary study, PROC. WORKSHOP ON BIOGEOCHEMISTRY OF TROPICAL RAIN FORESTS: PROBLEMS FOR RESEARCH, D. Athie, T. E. Lovejoy, & P. de M. Oyens (Eds.), Centro de Energia Nuclear na Agricultura & World Wildlife Fund, Piricicaba, Sao Paulo, Brazil, p. 51-66). Local cooling on large scales by reforestation can result in permanent cooling of several degrees by increased evapotranspiration of heat from soil to atmosphere, while greatly increasing biomass and soil carbon!
Capoeira is clearcut primary Amazonian forest next to intact control sites.
Thomas J. F. Goreau, PhD
President, Global Coral Reef AllianceChief Scientist, Blue Regeneration SL
President, Biorock Technology Inc.Technical Advisor, Blue Guardians Programme, SIDS DOCK
37 Pleasant Street, Cambridge, MA 02139
gor...@globalcoral.org
www.globalcoral.org
Skype: tomgoreau
Tel: (1) 617-864-4226 (leave message)
Books:
Geotherapy: Innovative Methods of Soil Fertility Restoration, Carbon Sequestration, and Reversing CO2 Increase
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466595392
Innovative Methods of Marine Ecosystem Restoration
http://www.crcpress.com/product/isbn/9781466557734
No one can change the past, everybody can change the future
It’s much later than we think, especially if we don’t think
Those with their heads in the sand will see the light when global warming and sea level rise wash the beach away
Geotherapy: Regenerating ecosystem services to reverse climate change
From: <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Geoengineering News <geoengine...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: "andrew....@gmail.com" <andrew....@gmail.com>
Date: Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 6:35 AM
To: "carbondiox...@googlegroups.com" <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [CDR] CDR Modeled in MAGICC to return to preindustrial temperatures by 2100
https://eartharxiv.org/repository/view/5300/
Authors
Experimental test of the theory proposed in an Alternative Method to Determine a Carbon Dioxide Removal Target. The multi-step experiment explores halting anthropogenic emissions from greenhouse gases and removing all historic cumulative anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions in less than a hundred years to match the preindustrial temperature. The multi-step experiment was conducted on MAGICC 6.8, a reduced complexity model or model emulator, managed by pymagicc. The experiment compares the new experimental pathway 300x2050, marker SSP1 2.6, and SSP1 1.9 within the context of development under a green growth paradigm and explores large-scale linear carbon dioxide removal over the 80-year time frame. The multi-step experiment calibrated the experimental pathway to include recent historic emissions through 2020, and was subsequently tuned to model the recent average global temperatures and CO₂ concentration through 2020. Contrary to the prior proposed theory all anthropogenic emissions (from both fossil fuels and land-use change) needed to be removed to realize the final temperature of nearly 0ºC. The experimental pathway evolved temperature to 0.07ºC relative to the 1720-1800 mean and 0.14ºC to the 1850-1900 mean and realized a final CO₂ concentration of 278.82 ppm by 2550. The evolved climate at 2550 was achieved by phasing out all greenhouse gases, excluding ammonia, and removing all cumulative anthropogenic carbon dioxide ending by 2100.
Source: Earth RXiv
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAHJsh99CaLywJvi59CYKwHUrA1o9xFoHiJ_vW2aaJ4hjr7u1-Q%40mail.gmail.com.--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/3FEE4998-25D3-48F9-ADD9-49E04306952C%40globalcoral.org.--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/222AE937-FA14-4939-986B-7BB6D9339537%40globalcoral.org.--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/A08072B4-6ECC-45EB-9261-10924A275BEB%40globalcoral.org.--Shannon A. Fiumesha...@autofracture.com | +01.415.272.7020http://www.autofracture.com/research | http://www.autofracture.com/opencarbonhttps://linkedin.com/in/safiume | Go Carbon Negative!
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/79844895-5643-2f28-7abc-2594c19d71cc%40earthlink.net.
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/PH8PR10MB65498BB98DB18310AD17714AA76E9%40PH8PR10MB6549.namprd10.prod.outlook.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to CarbonDioxideRem...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/530824105.3090857.1682907974848%40email.ionos.co.uk.
Clive Elsworth
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/000001d98123%24948bd210%24bda37630%24%40chesdata.com.
Clive Elsworth
Hi Bruce
Apologies again, I don’t currently have time to do justice to your figures.
>400 GT CO2 budget
This is probably an old observation but given today’s atmospheric methane concentration (which we know is rising close to 2 ppm) aren’t we already on track for 1.5° C? i.e. Isn’t current CO2e already at around 560 ppm? If so, haven’t we already blown the 400 GT CO2 budget?
And doesn’t the increased forcing in the Arctic from darkened ice and Arctic haze mean that budget was likely blown some time ago? (I’d be glad to be wrong.)
If the IPCC is not allowed to include all the relevant forcings in their calculations, how can they provide the supposed reliable expert information for governments to act appropriately on?
I’m not a climate expert, just one of the many people saying “The emperor wears no clothes”.
>Solar radiation management is horrible
Many of us would like to see serious research funding going into tropospheric cooling methods, as well as stratospheric. At least if something goes wrong with low lying cloud cooling the effect disappears within weeks of the intervention being switched off. That’s because hygroscopic aerosols tend to get rained out within a few weeks or even days.
Clive
From: Bruce Parker <br...@chesdata.com>
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 2:41 PM
To: 'Clive Elsworth' <cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk>
Cc: CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [CDR] CDR Modeled in MAGICC to return to preindustrial temperatures by 2100 - credible emissions projections are also needed.
Hi Clive –
Glad you liked my start at estimating a “planning number” for CO2 emissions.
==============================================
400 GT CO2 is the IPCC’s CO2 budget (cumulative emissions from2020 through 2100) for a 66% chance of limiting the temperature increase to 1.5° C
==============================================
Who pays for CDR?
Since there is no “sellable” product at the scale needed, there is “roi” (return on investment”). So governments will have to “foot the bill” . Which means that you and I likely pay for CDR through taxes (and/or higher costs for the products that we consume).
I just found this PDF – look like a good summary
Who pays for DAC?
The policy and market landscape for advancing direct air capture
https://www.naefrontiers.org/201099/Abstract
Conclusions
- DAC companies need sources of revenue in order to scale up their technology and drive down costs.
- Selling CO2 into the merchant and EOR markets could provide early revenue and is already occurring at small scale but will saturate at tens of millions of tons/year.
- Voluntary purchases of CO2 removal and storage by companies seeking to meet net-zero pledges could provide additional support and might scale to tens of millions of tons/year.
- State and Federal support through various policies is essential for DAC to scale to hundreds of millions of tons/year or above
==============================================
what carbon intensity will that amount of money be generated by?
I have not looked into that
==============================================
how much more CO2 emissions will that result in?
There will be emissions to build and run CDR, but, assuming that renewable energy is used for both, the additional emissions will not be significant. But the energy requirements for DAC will be significant at the scale needed
Direct air capture's hidden energy cost
Removing just one ton of carbon from the sky via direct air capture will require 1,200 kilowatt-hours.
https://www.protocol.com/bulletins/direct-air-capture-energy-use
If we need to remove 30 GTCO2/year, that would require 30,000,000,000 * 1,200 Kwh = 36,000,000,000,000 khw = 36,000TWh (1 TWh = 1000000000 kWh)
Current global electrical energy consumption is about 25,000twh (https://www.statista.com/statistics/280704/world-power-consumption/ )
So we would need build the equivalent of the today’s global electrical energy production system just for DAC at the scale needed (30 GTCO2/year)
==============================================
if your projected CO2 emissions include what can be expected for the energy needed for the additional metal processing and refining needed for the energy transition
I haven’t looked at the EIA or IEA projection at that level of detail. But based on the emission projections for 2050 I’d guess that neither projection expects needed energy transition (to “net zero”) to be very far along in 2050
==============================================
equilibrium climate sensitivity
ECS takes centuries to millennium to be realized. This is my take on the expected future temperature increase for constant GHG concentrations and an ECS of 4° C:
| W/m2 | PPM | 2100 | 2300 | 5000 |
Current RF without Aerosol RF | 4.1 | 600 | 3.5 | 4.4 | 10 |
Current RF | 2.8 | 460 | 2.4 | 3 | 7 |
If atmospheric GHG concentrations remain essentially unchanged for thousands of years and the aerosol radiative forcing goes to zero then the temperature increase will eventually reach 10° C
==============================================
direct cooling intervention will be needed
That’s also the conclusion that I’ve reached. What is needed is an honest (and realistic) discussion of what level of GHG emissions we should plan for (or expect) and at what point an intervention is needed. Solar geoengineering is a horrible alternative, but a collapse of civilization could be worse. One of the reasons that wrote the two “thought papers” was to outline some of the ”ideas” that need to be discussed. I would think some of my “numbers” would need adjusting and that other “numbers” might need to be included.
==============================================
Michael Hayes
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/031f01d981d6%24c1714270%244453c750%24%40EndorphinSoftware.co.uk.
Bruce Parker
Hi Clive –
My comments are below in green.
Bruce Parker
From: 'Clive Elsworth' via Carbon Dioxide Removal [mailto:CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 1:59 PM
To: 'Bruce Parker'
Cc: CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [CDR] CDR Modeled in MAGICC to return to preindustrial temperatures by 2100 - credible emissions projections are also needed.
Hi Bruce
Apologies again, I don’t currently have time to do justice to your figures.
>400 GT CO2 budget
This is probably an old observation (it is not - see https://fairallocation.org/IPCCAR6Budget.aspx )
but given today’s atmospheric methane concentration (which we know is rising close to 2 ppm) aren’t we already on track for 1.5° C? Yes
The budget assumes methane emissions will be reduced to about 50% of 2020 levels in 2050 – which I don’t think is likely. If we expect methane emissions to be 2020 levels in 2050 then there is no CO2 budget left
i.e. Isn’t current CO2e already at around 560 ppm? Yes, but the aerosol masking reduces the “effective PPM” to something closer to 460 PPM
If so, haven’t we already blown the 400 GT CO2 budget? No. Best case scenario includes “overshooting” 1.5°C and then removing enough CO2 so the net cumulative emissions 2020-2100 are 400 GTCO2 and methane emissions are reduced to about 50% of 2020 levels in 2050
And doesn’t the increased forcing in the Arctic from darkened ice and Arctic haze mean that budget was likely blown some time ago? (I’d be glad to be wrong.) No. The increased forcing in the Arctic is supposed to have been taken into account by climate sensitivity. My concern is that the amount of forcing associated in the models for a 1.5° C temperature increase is much less than that which will happen, which would mean that the models underestimate the warming. I’ve asked the question many times but I have yet to get a satisfactory answer.
If the IPCC is not allowed to include all the relevant forcings in their calculations, how can they provide the supposed reliable expert information for governments to act appropriately on? Good question. “Everybody knows” their estimates are conservative, but there appears to me to be a reluctance to contradict the IPCC results.
I’m not a climate expert, just one of the many people saying “The emperor wears no clothes”. I agree
>Solar radiation management is horrible
Many of us would like to see serious research funding going into tropospheric cooling methods, as well as stratospheric. At least if something goes wrong with low lying cloud cooling the effect disappears within weeks of the intervention being switched off. That’s because hygroscopic aerosols tend to get rained out within a few weeks or even days. Yes, but the concern is the that the “masking” will also end and the “termination shock” could result in an abrupt temperature increase.
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/031f01d981d6%24c1714270%244453c750%24%40EndorphinSoftware.co.uk.
Cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk
On 08/05/2023 22:55 BST Bruce Parker <br...@chesdata.com> wrote:
Hi Clive –
My comments are below in green.
Bruce Parker
From: 'Clive Elsworth' via Carbon Dioxide Removal [mailto:CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com]
Sent: Monday, May 8, 2023 1:59 PM
To: 'Bruce Parker'
Cc: CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [CDR] CDR Modeled in MAGICC to return to preindustrial temperatures by 2100 - credible emissions projections are also needed.
Hi Bruce
Apologies again, I don’t currently have time to do justice to your figures.
>400 GT CO2 budget
This is probably an old observation (it is not - see https://fairallocation.org/IPCCAR6Budget.aspx )
but given today’s atmospheric methane concentration (which we know is rising close to 2 ppm) aren’t we already on track for 1.5° C? Yes
The budget assumes methane emissions will be reduced to about 50% of 2020 levels in 2050 – which I don’t think is likely. If we expect methane emissions to be 2020 levels in 2050 then there is no CO2 budget left
i.e. Isn’t current CO2e already at around 560 ppm? Yes, but the aerosol masking reduces the “effective PPM” to something closer to 460 PPM
If so, haven’t we already blown the 400 GT CO2 budget? No. Best case scenario includes “overshooting” 1.5°C and then removing enough CO2 so the net cumulative emissions 2020-2100 are 400 GTCO2 and methane emissions are reduced to about 50% of 2020 levels in 2050
And doesn’t the increased forcing in the Arctic from darkened ice and Arctic haze mean that budget was likely blown some time ago? (I’d be glad to be wrong.) No. The increased forcing in the Arctic is supposed to have been taken into account by climate sensitivity. My concern is that the amount of forcing associated in the models for a 1.5° C temperature increase is much less than that which will happen, which would mean that the models underestimate the warming. I’ve asked the question many times but I have yet to get a satisfactory answer.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/014b01d981f7%24be72cc80%243b586580%24%40chesdata.com.
Shannon A. Fiume
Michael,
Interesting paper. I'd watch for product yield (conversion) and
built device selectivity of CO2 besides absorption/desorption.
Fig B, & C doesn't look good w/ the ratios of CO2 to other products, and photons to product yield? I might have missed something. The paper doesn't explicitly say it, but the yield seems low. I'm out of time for this paper, but did they show a verification of the semiconductor before and after to see if any CO2 or CO was left absorbed on the material, not just a free gas product after the experiment ran?
I've seen photoionization with UV studies before, but unfortunately they had an extremely low yield. But the physics of needing a doubleshot of UV photoizoniation to fully liberate C was outlined: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/346/6205/61.full . (I keep a table of some known CO2 dissociation products here: https://opennanocarbon.atlassian.net/wiki/spaces/phot/pages/1179669/VUV+Photoionization)
Best,
~~sa
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CABjtO1cU-52MubLN%2BSHCSUvAv5035TUxceHRbXGWzCzboVcKBw%40mail.gmail.com.
Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas
A couple of thoughts on costs and energy:
At $100 ton, Keith
2018 equals the $100 trillion perceived to be required for
1,000 Gt removal.
Kieth's low range is actually $94 a ton, based on $0.03 kWh natural gas. Using a simplified model with renewable energy at today's $0.01 kWh with 87% costs energy, this is $39 a ton. (It's not that simple though, part of the costs are direct heat but for illustrative purposes...)
Using natural gas owned by the organizations that will be doing
the market share of air capture, where their cost of natural gas
is almost nothing, costs are at least as low as renewables,
probably much lower. There is a carbon penalty for using natural
gas, but additional scaling of the removal infrastructure is
little money relative to the initial scaling from Keith's estimate
today using existing industrial components with known scaling
factors to the 1 million ton per year facility to the 10 to 100
million ton facilities needed to achieve restoration. This further
scaling plus process improvements will reduce costs further. But,
the removal required is more likely half again as much CO2 because
of failure of net zero schemes that are unlikely to perform, as
history has shown.
Removing 1,500 Gt CO2 at $10 ton is $15 trillion, $30 trillion
for $20 ton, $45 trillion for $30 ton...
Where will the money coming from?
The Inflation Reduction Act's enhancements of IRS 45Q at $85 ton
for EOR and $180 ton for non-EOR disposal are significantly
greater than costs or EOR (at $60+/- ton break even) and of
removal at $100 ton, and as of now there are no caps on the
incentives that can be paid. This is plenty on money to get the
infrastructure implementation rolling.
But for argument's sake, say it's $100 a ton for $1,500 Gt at
$150 trillion. In WWII we spent $19 trillion dollars globally
(2019 dollars) in 7 years, 1939 through 1945, on industrial
expansion and mostly heavy manufacturing or $2.71 trillion 2019 US
dollars per year. Global GDP in WWII was an average of $6.37
trillion 2019 US dollars per year in WW II, totaling $44.6
trillion in 7 years. Average annual global WWII spending then, was
43 percent of global GDP. If we were to mimic WWII
industrialization infrastructure spending today at 43 percent of
global GDP of $87 trillion annually in 2019, this would be $37
trillion per year, or $261 trillion in seven years. (At $100
trillion global GDP annually in 2022, this would be $43 trillion
per year, or $301 trillion in seven years.)
The challenge then is not money, but motivation.
Existential Motivation? Understating Climate Science, Tipping,
and the Point of No Return
WWII was an existential threat, but nowhere near that of
irreversible climate change. This is the challenge. Tipping
collapses are active and do not self-restore unless our climate is
restored to within the evolutionary boundaries (natural climate
variation) of our Earth Systems. If Earth's temperature is not
restored before these collapsing systems' irreversible points
of no return (Hansen
2008), existential futures will occur from outsized feedback
emissions that will be far more difficult to overcome than
humankind's. The conundrum with climate science is as follows:
The literature refers to tipping time frames as occurring
at the point of no return (PONR), with little or no mention of
what happens with tipping responses activation beforehand.
Before the PONR, tipping responses have an activation period where
Earth systems' collapses begin, mostly when evolutionary
boundaries are exceeded (natural climate variation). Then at some
point the collapses progress until they become irreversible even
if the warming that cased the collapses to begin is removed. This
is why scientists and consensus reporting say tipping is a long
way off.
The end of century PONR of the literature then, comes from the same basis that has seen at least 20 known Earth systems collapse initiations (from permafrost to the Amazon) to be generations to a century or more ahead of projections. Logical extension of these understated projections should tell us that the PONRs are far advanced from end of the century time frames.
The literature then, and the scenarios of consensus organizations that assume additional warming is safe, tell us the PONRs are way in the distant future, and the media then amplifies these understatements. To overcome these biases we must create a sea change in climate science to include restoration scenarios that are based on logic and simple systems collapse science, instead of continuing to follow the same path that has create these existential understatements in climate science.
Steep trails,
Bruce M
Ps. On a direct cooling intervention; the plausible need for
emergency cooling is why I was able to convince Sierra Club to
adopt a policy to support research on geoengineering, when their
previous position on geoengineering anything, research included,
was "over their dead body." This philosophy is not direct cooling
that is oh-so-likely needed, but it gets the ball rolling with
buy-in from groups and orgs that have the same position as what
Sierra Club had prior to adoption of their new climate policies in
2020.
Director, Climate Change Now Initiative, 501c3
President, Melton Engineering Services Austin
8103 Kirkham Drive
Austin, Texas 78736
(512)799-7998
ClimateDiscovery.org
ClimateChangePhoto.org
MeltonEngineering.com
Face...@Bruce.Melton.395
Inst...@Bruce.C.Melton
The Band Climate Change
Twitter - BruceCMelton1
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/325357410.446879.1683537839083%40email.ionos.co.uk.
Michael Hayes
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/be87d74a-5d4a-5a3e-b827-3d9bde47cb04%40autofracture.com.
Bruce Parker
A couple of thoughts:
1. DAC cost/ton
a. For “planning purposes” I’d really like to use values from peer-reviewed articles. For example:
i. “The cost of direct air capture and storage: the impact of technological learning, regional diversity, and policy” states “This suggests that the long-term policy goal, in the United States, of $100 t-CO2 may be challenging, yet not impossible, to surpass.” (https://chemrxiv.org/engage/api-gateway/chemrxiv/assets/orp/resource/item/62c8275b252b2116a8df9365/original/the-cost-of-direct-air-capture-and-storage-the-impact-of-technological-learning-regional-diversity-and-policy.pdf )
ii. “The cost of direct air capture and storage: the impact of technological learning, regional diversity, and policy.” “Our analysis demonstrates the cost of DACS is unlikely to reach the $100 t-CO2-1 target, as costs fall to $100-600 t-CO2-1 at the Gt-CO2 year-1 scale.” https://chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/article-details/637e3ebeebc1c76513d02d12
b. So $100/ton looks right to me
2. Assume the global CDR requirement is 1,500 GTCO2, or 30 GTCO2/year for 50 years. At $100/ton that’s $3 Trillion/year. If the US is responsible for 20%, that’s $600 Billion/year. We can certainly afford that, but will politicians be willing to spend that kind of money when there will no visible benefit for years?
3. With BAU we are likely to hit 2°C before 2050. How many tipping points will be passed by then (or shortly thereafter)? Shouldn’t we be spending at least $500 billion/year on climate change today? Since we aren’t, how can we expect future Congresses to allocate at least $500 billion/year?
4. What “planning numbers” do we need to start a conversation on the conditions under which we should start SRM? Temperature increase > VVV? Total RF > XXX? CO2ePPM = YYY and expected GHG emissions expected to be ZZZ?
Bruce P
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/a2e99539-188a-bb82-e924-f26cf1b0ac1d%40earthlink.net.
Jim Baird
Why would anyone pay $3 Trillion/year for CDR when you can have twice the energy currently derived from fossil fuels wile removing 4.3 gigatonnes/year for less than $3 trillion/year.
See The Case for Direct Climate Cooling (Baiman, et al.) April 2023
From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com On Behalf Of Bruce Parker
Sent: May 10, 2023 12:53 PM
To: 'Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas' <bme...@earthlink.net>; 'Clive Elsworth' <cl...@endorphinsoftware.co.uk>
Cc: CarbonDiox...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [CDR] CDR Modeled in MAGICC to return to preindustrial temperatures by 2100 - credible emissions projections are also needed.
A couple of thoughts:
- DAC cost/ton
- For “planning purposes” I’d really like to use values from peer-reviewed articles. For example:
i. “The cost of direct air capture and storage: the impact of technological learning, regional diversity, and policy” states “This suggests that the long-term policy goal, in the United States, of $100 t-CO2 may be challenging, yet not impossible, to surpass.” (https://chemrxiv.org/engage/api-gateway/chemrxiv/assets/orp/resource/item/62c8275b252b2116a8df9365/original/the-cost-of-direct-air-capture-and-storage-the-impact-of-technological-learning-regional-diversity-and-policy.pdf )
ii. “The cost of direct air capture and storage: the impact of technological learning, regional diversity, and policy.” “Our analysis demonstrates the cost of DACS is unlikely to reach the $100 t-CO2-1 target, as costs fall to $100-600 t-CO2-1 at the Gt-CO2 year-1 scale.” https://chemrxiv.org/engage/chemrxiv/article-details/637e3ebeebc1c76513d02d12
- So $100/ton looks right to me
- Assume the global CDR requirement is 1,500 GTCO2, or 30 GTCO2/year for 50 years. At $100/ton that’s $3 Trillion/year. If the US is responsible for 20%, that’s $600 Billion/year. We can certainly afford that, but will politicians be willing to spend that kind of money when there will no visible benefit for years?
- With BAU we are likely to hit 2°C before 2050. How many tipping points will be passed by then (or shortly thereafter)? Shouldn’t we be spending at least $500 billion/year on climate change today? Since we aren’t, how can we expect future Congresses to allocate at least $500 billion/year?
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/00d001d98379%2402df2440%24089d6cc0%24%40chesdata.com.
Robert Chris
All very rational but it'll go nowhere until
claims that we're facing a climate emergency transitions from
rhetoric to reality. While the climate emergency is an
emergency in name only, politicians will not have the licence to
do what needs to be done. We'll know when that transition is
beginning to happen because all this talk about $X/tCO2 will
disappear and be replaced by metrics like XdegC cooling within N
years, or atmospheric CO2e down to Xppmv in N years, or
emissions down to -XGtCO2e within N years. When faced with an
existential threat, the relevant metrics are the ones that show
you're winning the battle, not the ones that tell you how
cost-effective your spending is. Spending could be very
cost-effective but still not be climatically effective. $X/tCO2
gives no sense of timing. Time is short and shortening rapidly,
and time is something that you can't buy more of however much
money you've got.
Robert Chris
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/00d001d98379%2402df2440%24089d6cc0%24%40chesdata.com.
Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas
Bruce P,
Just sayin. The science is fraught with scenarios that mean little and can be damaging. Right now hundreds of $$$billions are being committed to take CO2 out of the air and get the IRA's IRS 45Q incentive. At $85 and $180 ton for EOR and non-EOR sequestration, there could be some real money on the table at $100 ton cost. My bet though is on those clever engineers that make money for the oil business and them using nearly free natural gas to create costs of air capture that are indeed in the low two digits. There are no scenarios like this in climate science, but I would wager there are a-plenty in the proprietary vaults of the oil business. Below is my ongoing list of industrialization commitments.
And I do agree that
even at $100 a ton it's little money -- in the US we spent $4.3
trillion on health care in 2021. Little money though, when it
has 16 zeros, is a big deal to most advocates and a lot of
concerned citizens and politicians and quite a few scientists,
regardless of the relative nature of the pile of cash.
Steep trails,
Bruce M
MeltOn's
Ongoing List of Industrialization Committements
April 20, 2023 -
Frontier Air Capture… Commitments top
$1B with four new members: Autodesk, H&M Group, JPMorgan
Chase, and Workday.
Since April 2022, Frontier has facilitated purchases from 15
carbon removal
startups.
https://frontierclimate.com/writing/new-members?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
December 3, 2022, NGK
CO2 air capture – 1) Ceramic substrate and 2)
Freezing with Natural Gas excess cold from compressor
stations… 1) Ceramic
substrate like automobile
catalytic converters, unspecified capture agent, normal
liberation heating, 2)
and cold from natural gas compression to "liquefied" before
transmissionto freeze the CO2 out of the ab-adsorbant.
Shimizu, New technology to capture CO2 from air set for Japan
trials, Nikkei
Financial,November 28, 2022.
https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Environment/Climate-Change/New-technology-to-capture-CO2-from-air-set-for-Japan-trials
November 26, 2022, One
Million Tons Per Yera "Hub" in
Louisiana by 2030... "Direct air capture (DAC) company
Climeworks and Louisiana-based Gulf Coast Sequestration (GCS)
signed a
memorandum of understanding on Nov. 21 to develop the first
DAC hub on the Gulf
Coast in Louisiana. The project aims to enable the permanent
removal of one
million tons of CO2 from the atmosphere by the end of the
decade, with the
potential to expand to multi-million-ton capacity in future
years."
Doneva, Climeworks And Gulf Coast Sequestration Partner To
Launch Direct Air
Capture Hub On The Gulf Coast In Louisiana, Carbon Herald,
November 22, 2022.
https://carbonherald.com/climeworks-and-gulf-coast-sequestration-partner-to-launch-direct-air-capture-hub-on-the-gulf-coast-in-louisiana/
November 20, 2022, $882
million in carbon capture funding, 2nd
quarter 2022…
https://www.protocol.com/bulletins/carbon-capture-venture-capital-investment
September 8, 2022 -
Project Bison, Wyoming, 5 million tons per year by
2030, a Direct Air Capture (DAC) project of Frontier Carbon
Solutions and
CarbonCapture, Inc. … "A Los Angeles-based company
kicked off on Thursday what it said
will be the first large-scale direct air capture (DAC) project
to capture and
store 5 million tons of carbon dioxide per year by 2030,
benefiting from new
U.S. government incentives." Stripe, Alphabet, Shopify, Meta,
McKinsey
CarbonCapture Inc.
Announces Five
Megaton Direct Air Capture and Storage Project in Wyoming…
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20220908005446/en/CarbonCapture-Inc.-Announces-Five-Megaton-Direct-Air-Capture-and-Storage-Project-in-Wyoming
CarbonCapture, Inc,
modular… "A
generalized DAC platform for solid sorbents that allows for
incremental
upgrades, minimizes obsolescence, and speeds up development
cycles."
Sorbents include amines, MOFs (metal-organic framework),
zeolites and more.
https://www.carboncapture.com/
EXCLUSIVE New law helps
U.S. firm launch
Wyoming direct air carbon capture project…
https://www.reuters.com/markets/carbon/exclusive-new-law-helps-us-firm-launch-wyoming-direct-air-carbon-capture-project-2022-09-08/
CarbonClean…
CycloneCC
– worlds smallest carbon capture tech…
https://www.carbonclean.com/industrial-carbon-capture-technology?hsCtaTracking=4d330ef7-b427-4507-ba9c-5ce011059864%7C2a75a2d9-05f6-49ca-bd6f-a63edf949004
Ebook…
https://www.carbonclean.com/industrial-carbon-capture-technology?hsCtaTracking=4d330ef7-b427-4507-ba9c-5ce011059864%7C2a75a2d9-05f6-49ca-bd6f-a63edf949004
Carbon Xprize … 1133
teams
https://illuminem.com/energyvoices/b02e09de-a3ad-41dd-8811-0bf7c7cc36cb
Carbon Engineering – Oxy, 1PointeFive
May 6, 2023 - Occidental
Begins Work On The
World’s Largest Direct Air Capture Plant
Violet George, Carbon Herald… 1 billion, 500 million ton
facility 20 miles
south of Notrees, Texas.
bonherald.com/occidental-begins-work-worlds-largest-direct-air-capture-plant/
April 28,
2023 - Stratus in the Permian Broke Ground
https://www.newswest9.com/article/news/local/oxy-groundbreaking-carbon-capture-plant/513-3251a044-624a-40aa-888e-fa5ebb0b533b
March 2,
2023, 1PointFive Oxy Carbon Capture and Sequestration Hub in
Southeast Texas… The 55,000-acre site has resource
potential
to store approximately 1.2 billion metric tons of carbon
dioxide… The
Bluebonnet Hub is located in Chambers, Liberty and Jefferson
counties near
expected to be operational in 2026, will provide for CO2
captured off-site to
be securely stored in saline formations that are not
associated with oil and
gas production.
1PointFive Announces Plan to Develop a Carbon Capture and
Sequestration Hub in
Southeast Texas, NASDAQ, March 2, 2023.
https://www.nasdaq.com/press-release/1pointfive-announces-plan-to-develop-a-carbon-capture-and-sequestration-hub-in
November 9,
2022, 20% increase in first plant cost due to inflation,
number of proposed
plants up from 70 to 100 because of IRA… "Government
incentives and passage of the Inflation Reduction
Act allow it to plan 100 DAC facilities by 2035, from 70
before, Hollub said.
Land for half of them has been secured."
Valle and Soni, Occidental's project to capture CO2 takes a
hit from inflation,
Rueters, November 9, 2022.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/occidental-raises-costs-direct-air-capture-project-due-inflation-2022-11-09/
October 31,
2022, 1PointFive, 30 million tons per year, no EOR, 20
percent improvement in
capture efficiency … Carbon
Engineering begins work on supporting multi-million tonne
Direct Air Capture
facilities in Kleberg County, Texas (King Ranch). The site is
expected to
provide access for the potential construction of multiple DAC
facilities that
would be capable of collectively removing up to 30 million
tonnes of carbon
dioxide from the atmosphere annually for dedicated
sequestration.
Carbon Engineering Press Release - https://carbonengineering.com/news-updates/multi-million-tonne-south-texas/
August 25,
2022 Occidental, OnePointFive, Carbon Engineering, Permian
Basin – Construction update, PH1 500,000 tons/yr
https://carbonengineering.com/news-updates/construction-direct-air-capture-texas/
06/07/22
Occidental 1PointeFive…
An oil-company spinoff wants to help build 70 direct air
capture plants by 2035
https://www.fastcompany.com/90758711/an-oil-company-spinoff-wants-to-help-build-70-direct-air-capture-plants-by-2035?partner=rss&utm_campaign=rss+fastcompany&utm_content=rss&utm_medium=feed&utm_source=rss
DAC1, IEA on
Carbon Engineering , Oxy and The Permian facility… "In
Q1 2021, OLCV awarded the Front End
Engineering and Design (FEED) phase to global professional
services provider
Worley. The FEED phase of DAC 1 is focused on a first capture
train with a
planned capture capacity of 0.5 MtCO2/year; the total capacity
of the project
will subsequently increase to 1.0 MtCO2/year. The project is
supported by a
multi-million dollar investment from United Airlines, and,
upon approvals, two
key policies: California’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard and the
United States’ 45Q
tax credit."
https://www.iea.org/reports/ccus-around-the-world/dac-1
1PointFive...
https://www.1pointfive.com/
July 12,
2022, Drax, North Yorkshire UK $2 billion British pounds for
8 million tons per
year through BECCS (forest pellets)… First unit
operational in 2024. "The company plans to invest £2bn in the
2020s in its
plans to develop two bioenergy with carbon capture and storage
(BECCS) units."
https://www.drax.com/press_release/drax-submits-plans-to-build-worlds-largest-carbon-capture-and-storage-project/
September
21, 2022, Drax commits to 12 million tons Co2 per year…
"Drax aims to deliver 12 million metric tonnes of
carbon dioxide
removals per year using BECCS by 2030 and this deal will
relate to the CDRs
produced from Drax’s North American BECCS facilities."
https://www.drax.com/press_release/worlds-biggest-carbon-removals-deal-announced-at-new-york-climate-week/
May 10,
2022, Bayou Bend Project - Talos, Carbonvert Bring Chevron
Aboard to Propel
CCUS Project Offshore Texas…
225-275 million metric tons of carbon dioxide
from the shallow waters near Beaumont and Port Arthur.
https://www.naturalgasintel.com/talos-carbonvert-bring-chevron-aboard-to-propel-ccus-project-offshore-texas/
March 23,
2022 - Occidental and Carbon Engineering in the Permian… good
new numbers and 70 Air capture hubs, three operational by
2025.
https://www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/occidental-to-spend-5-of-2022-capital-on-permian-carbon-removal-plant-69498606
Occidental
Chemicals and Carbon, MIT -
Temple, Why the world’s biggest
CO2-sucking plant would be used to … err, dig up more oil? And
how it might
even be a good thing. MIT Technology Review, May 27, 2019
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/613579/why-the-worlds-biggest-cosub2-sub-sucking-plant-would-be-used-to-err-dig-up-more-oil/
Oxy Net-Zero
Goal, December 3, 2020 -
https://digital.olivesoftware.com/olive/ODN/HoustonChronicle/shared/ShowArticle.aspx?doc=HHC%2F2020%2F12%2F03&entity=Ar01500&sk=EFF8B3CA&mode=text#=undefined
July 25,
2022 –Air Products Announces Additional "Third by ‘30" CO2
Emissions
Reduction Goal, Commitment to Net Zero by 2050, and Increase
in New Capital for
Energy Transition to $15 Billion… Air
products claims they will be the world's largest when
completed. $15 billion
total investment 2022 includes 30 percent reduction in scope 3
emissions by
2030, in addition to Scope1 and 2 reductions.
https://www.airproducts.com/news-center/2022/07/0725-air-products-announces-additional-sustainability-commitments
October 14,
2021 – Air Products, 5 Million tons per year… Louisiana:
$4.5 Billion, 5 million tons per year, online in 2026
from Blue Hydrogen reformation out of natural gas. - https://www.airproducts.com/news-center/2022/07/0725-air-products-announces-additional-sustainability-commitments
https://www.airproducts.com/campaigns/la-blue-hydrogen-project
HOUSTON, Feb. 22, 2021
/PRNewswire/
-- 1PointFive announced today its selection of Worley for the
Front End
Engineering and Design (FEED) phase of its first direct air
capture (DAC)
facility in the U.S. Permian Basin—DAC 1.
https://www.prnewswire.com/in/news-releases/1pointfive-selects-worley-for-feed-on-milestone-direct-air-capture-facility-837514192.html
Carbon
Engineering Funders, March 21, 2019 – Occidental
Chemicals, Bill Gates, Murray Edwards, BHP, Chevron Technology
Ventures, Oxy
Low Carbon Ventures, LLC, Bethel Lands Corporation Ltd, Carbon
Order, First
Round Capital, Lowercase Capital, Rusheen Capital Management,
LLC, Starlight
Ventures, Thomvest Asset Management and others.
https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2019/03/21/1758562/0/en/Carbon-Engineering-concludes-USD-68-million-private-investment-round-and-proceeds-with-commercialization-of-carbon-dioxide-removal-technology.html#:~:text=CE's%20investors%20now%20include%3A%20Bill,an%20affiliate%20of%20Peter%20J.
Carbon
Engineering and Storegga, (June 23, 2021) 500,000 to
1,000,000 tons per year in
Scotland, operational in 2026…
https://carbonengineering.com/news-updates/uks-first-large-scale-dac-facility/
Exxon Mobile
and Global Thermostat, September 21, 2020 -
"Expanded their joint development agreement following 12
months of
technical evaluation… Global Thermostat's 'breakthrough
technology' using
amines… ExxonMobil has more than 30 years of experience in CCS
technology and
was the first company to capture more than 120 million tonnes
of CO2… $3
billion to advance plans for over 20 new CCS opportunities:
U.S. Gulf Coast,
Wyoming, Netherlands, Belgium, Scotland, Singapore, Qatar ."
Press Release - https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/News/Newsroom/News-releases/2020/0921_ExxonMobil-expands-agreement-with-Global-Thermostat-re-direct-air-capture-technology
MIT Technology
Review, June 28, 2019 - https://www.technologyreview.com/f/613901/another-major-oil-company-tiptoes-into-the-carbon-removal-space/
University
of Arizona (Klaus Lackner) and Silicon Kingdom Holdings (SKH)
April 29, 2019 -https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange-carboncapture/do-mechanical-trees-offer-the-cure-for-climate-change-idUSKCN1S52CG
University
of Arizona (Klaus Lackner) Carbon Collect (formerly Silocn
Kingdom) April 15,
2022 - April 15, 2022 - Carbon
Collect’s MechanicalTree, based on the research of ASU
engineer Klaus Lackner,
will collect carbon from the atmosphere and help fight climate
change - First
'MechanicalTree' installed on ASU’s Tempe campus.
https://news.asu.edu/20220415-solutions-first-mechanicaltree-installed-asu-carbon-collect-tempe
Carbon Collect - https://mechanicaltrees.com/
Blue Planet
and Mitsubishi
September 23, 2020
- Mitsubishi is working to develop
technology for locking CO2 in concrete as part of a separate
project with
Japanese construction group Kajima and Hiroshima-based utility
Chugoku Electric
Power
https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Environment/US-startup-s-carbon-capture-concrete-wins-Mitsubishi-s-backing
Blue Planet and Chevron
Houston, Texas, January 14, 2021 — Chevron Corporation (NYSE:
CVX) today
announced a Series C investment in San Jose-based Blue Planet
Systems
Corporation (“Blue Planet”), a startup that manufactures and
develops carbonate
aggregates and carbon capture technology intended to reduce
the carbon
intensity of industrial operations.
https://www.chevron.com/stories/chevron-invests-in-carbon-capture-and-utilization-startup
ExxonMobil,
February 1, 2021… $3 Billion,
mostly on 20 direct air capture projects. "ExxonMobil has more
than 30
years of experience in CCS technology and was the first
company to capture more
than 120 million tonnes of CO2, which is equivalent to the
emissions of more
than 25 million cars for one year. The company has an equity
share in about one-fifth
of global CO2 capture capacity and has captured approximately
40 percent of all
the captured anthropogenic CO2 in the world."
https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/News/Newsroom/News-releases/2021/0201_ExxonMobil-Low-Carbon-Solutions-to-commercialize-emission-reduction-technology
Exxon
Labarge, Wyoming, expands
to 8 million
tons per year from 6 to 7 million tons, May 5, 2022…
ExxonMobil to Expand Carbon
Capture and Storage at LaBarge, Wyoming, Facility
https://www.yahoo.com/now/exxonmobil-expand-carbon-capture-storage-135000912.html
Exxon
Labarge EPA Verification Plan, 2018…
https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-06/documents/shutecreekmrvplan.pdf
Climeworks... $76
million 2020, Microsoft and Shopify
https://i3connect.com/company/climeworks
Climeworks Begins
Operations at
Carbfix, Reykjavik, Iceland
https://techcrunch.com/2021/12/03/co2-capture-iceland-climeworks-orca/
Petra Nova – next
process and Covid
Shutdown…
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/lessons-learned-from-the-closure-of-petra-nova-idtechex-reports-301252906.html
Parish Fire, Petra
Nova and possible shutdown
of Parish…
https://environmenttexas.org/news/txe/statement-ft-bend-county%E2%80%99s-wa-parish-coal-plant-catches-fire
CHINA
June 27, 2022,
Exxon Mobile China, 10 million tons per year, Dayawan
Petrochemical…
https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/news/newsroom/news-releases/2022/0627_exxonmobil-and-cnooc-and-shell-pursue-carbon-capture-and-storage-hub-in-china
April 30, 2021, Chinas
largest O&G
producer CNOOC is building 300,000 ton CO2 per year air
capture facility in the
South China Sea; undersea saline aquifer sequestration…
https://www.reuters.com/business/sustainable-business/chinas-cnooc-launches-first-offshore-carbon-capture-project-2021-08-30/
June 14, 2021, Eight
large-scale carbon
capture and utilization projects are scheduled by 2025 in
China, $450 billion…
https://www.scmp.com/business/china-business/article/3137245/climate-change-chinas-plans-double-carbon-capture-capacity
Gulf Coast Carbon CO2 Capture, Sequestration and Utilization Hub Carbon Hub, Carbon Capture Hub
December 14, 2022 - Infrastructure Act funding competition launched… $3.5 billion for four regional hubs. First round $1.2 billion from $3 million to $500 million matching funds, application deadline January 24, 2023. The remaining $2.3 billion round in 2024.
December 14, 2022,
DOE releases record funding for removing carbon, By Corbin
Hiar, Carlos
Anchondo, EE News
https://www.eenews.net/articles/doe-releases-record-funding-for-removing-carbon/
September 23, 2022 –
DOE $4.9 billion from
Bipartisan Infrastructure Act for point source CO2 capture
($2.54 B), pipeline
design ($110 m), and storage, validation and testing ($2.25
B)
The
Carbon Capture Demonstration Projects Program will provide up
to $2.54 billion
to develop six integrated carbon capture, transport and
storage projects that
can be deployed at power plants or other industrial
facilities, including
cement, pulp and paper, iron, steel, and certain types of
chemical plants.
- Carbon Dioxide Transport, Engineering, and Design will provide up to $100 million to design regional carbon dioxide pipeline networks to safely transport captured CO2.
- Carbon Storage
Validation, and Testing will
provide up to $2.25 billion to develop new and expanded
large-scale, commercial
carbon storage projects with the capacity to store at least 50
million metric
tons of CO2.
Exclusive: Energy Department announces nearly $4.9 billion for
carbon
management
(scroll down) https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/09/23/inside-two-day-scramble-add-drought-funding-climate-law/
July 28, 2022, The Big
Business of Burying
Carbon, Wired… A good article on what's really happening
with carbon hubs in Port
Arthur and Louisiana
https://www.wired.com/story/big-business-burying-carbon-dioxide-capture-storage/
May 19, 2022, DOE
Announces Bipartisan
Infrastructure Law Effort to Establish Regional Direct Air
Capture Hubs for
Large-Scale CO2 Removal… $3.5 billion NOI to fund – "
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law’s $3.5 billion program to
capture and store
carbon dioxide (CO2) pollution directly from the air. The
Regional Direct Air
Capture Hubs program will support four large-scale, regional
direct air capture
hubs that each comprise a network of carbon dioxide removal
(CDR) projects to
help address the impacts of climate change, creating
good-paying jobs and
prioritizing community engagement and environmental justice."
https://www.energy.gov/articles/biden-administration-launches-35-billion-program-capture-carbon-pollution-air-0
May 20, 2022, Federal
Carbon Dioxide Removal
Leadership Act (Whitehouse and Coons)… accelerating
U.S. global leadership in
carbon dioxide removal technologies
https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/news/release/whitehouse-coons-introduce-legislation-to-accelerate-carbon-dioxide-removal-
H.R.7434 – Federal
Carbon Dioxide Removal
Leadership Act… Starting at $500 ton, reducing
thereafter
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/7434
One Pager Scale Act… https://www.coons.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/One%20Pager%20-%20SCALE%20Act%20-%20117.pdf
May 5, 2022,
Chevron joins first-of-its-kind Gulf Coast carbon
sequestration project…
https://grist.org/energy/chevron-joins-first-of-its-kind-gulf-coast-carbon-sequestration-project/
November
2021 - FYI on Lease 257 and CO2 injection… Takeaway -
"Of the 317 bids the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management received – the highest since 2014 – about 140 of
them were for
tracts located in shallow waters of the Texas and Louisiana
coast, inexpensive
areas with depleted oil and gas reserves. 'The oil and gas
reserves in those
areas are pretty much tapped out at this point, so it's hard
for me to imagine
a company going in there with the idea of producing more oil
and gas,' said
Hugh Daigle, a petroleum researcher and professor at the
University of Texas.
'This is probably a CCS push.' "
Carbon capture plays prominent role in latest Gulf lease
auction, S&P
Global, Commodity Insights, 18 Nov 2021.
(Free account required) https://www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/energy-transition/111821-carbon-capture-plays-prominent-role-in-latest-gulf-lease-auction
ExxonMobil bids on 94
shallow-water tracts -
Auction confirms Gulf's carbon capture potential
Carbon capture and storage played
a large role in Lease Sale 257, which recorded a bumper crop
of bids from oil
and gas producers Nov. 17 for drilling rights in the US Gulf
of Mexico.
Of the 317 bids the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management received
– the highest
since 2014 – about 140 of them were for tracts located in
shallow waters of the
Texas and Louisiana coast, inexpensive areas with depleted oil
and gas
reserves. "The oil and gas reserves in those areas are pretty
much tapped
out at this point, so it's hard for me to imagine a company
going in there with
the idea of producing more oil and gas," said Hugh Daigle, a
petroleum
researcher and professor at the University of Texas. "This is
probably a
CCS push."
The largest bidder for shallow-water tracts was ExxonMobil, which placed bids on 94 tracts worth $158,000 apiece, according to BOEM data. The company's tracts are clustered in the Brazos Area, the Galveston Area and the High Island Area – locations in close proximity to the company's announced $100 billion CCS hub that will be located in southeast Texas. ExxonMobil didn't confirm whether the 94 tracts it placed bids on will be used for CCS. In a Nov. 18 statement to S&P Global Platts, the company said it "will work with the Department of the Interior on plans for the blocks once they are awarded."
"ExxonMobil takes a long-term business view. We will evaluate the seismic and subsurface geology for future commercial potential," it said. Other shallow-water tracts that received bids from companies were located off the coast of Louisiana, close to large onshore sources of CO2 emissions and existing transportation infrastructure.
The Gulf CCS push indicated by the shallow-water bids should come as no surprise considering investors' increasing focus on environmental standards and the growing number of net-zero commitments amongst traditional oil and gas companies. Earlier this year the Wall Street Journal reported that ExxonMobil is considering a 2050 net-zero pledge but has yet to make a firm commitment.
"This is the first big lease sale in the Gulf of Mexico that has come after a lot of these companies have made various carbon commitments," Daigle said. "And in light of that, it's probably not surprising that you're starting to see some of these leasing decisions being driven not just by oil and gas production, but by other economic interests of the company."
March 2021 - Bipartisan
group introduces
nation’s first comprehensive CO2 infrastructure bill…
https://www.coons.senate.gov/news/press-releases/bipartisan-group-introduces-nations-first-comprehensive-co2-infrastructure-bill
July 11,
2021, Gulf Coast ready to develop Carbon Storage Hub…
The stage is set for a new carbon storage economy to emerge
along the Gulf
Coast, according to a study led by The University of Texas at
Austin.
"$100 billion or more" -- 50 million metric tons of CO2
annually by 2030. By 2040, it could be 100 million metric
tons: Average 75
million tons annually for 18 years, 1.35 billion tons total,
$74 per ton.
Gulf Coast ready to develop Carbon Storage Hub, Carbon Capture
Journal, July
11, 2021.
https://www.carboncapturejournal.com/news/gulf-coast-ready-to-develop-carbon-storage-hub/4700.aspx?Category=all
November 17,
2021, Calma, Exxon’s new Gulf of Mexico leases aren’t what
they seem, The
Verge…
https://www.theverge.com/2021/11/18/22789506/exxonmobil-gulf-of-mexico-lease-sale-carbon-capture-sequestration
November 17,
2021, Exxon Eyes CCS in Active US Gulf Lease Sale…
November 17, Energy Intelligence
Group
https://www.energyintel.com/0000017d-2f96-defa-ab7d-6fbf0ac90000
May 19,
2021, Gulf Coast Carbon Center (BCCC) Bureau of Economic
Geology, University
of Texas…
https://www.beg.utexas.edu/gccc
Full Paper - Meckel et al., Carbon capture
utilization and storage hub development on the Gulf
Coast, Greenhouse
Gases Science and Technology, May 19, 2021.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ghg.2082?af=R
April 19,
2021, ExxonMobil Statement, $100 Billion…
The promise of carbon capture and storage, and a Texas-sized
call to action
https://energyfactor.exxonmobil.com/insights/partners/houston-ccs-hub/
and AP,
110221, Exxon seeks $100 billion for Houston carbon capture
plan…
https://apnews.com/article/climate-technology-business-paris-f76df7ee4e6a8a4b6bab96badb2eb41a
April 14,
2022, Exxon Mobile Australia 2 million tons per year in
design, Gippsland
Project…
https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/news/newsroom/news-releases/2022/0414_exxonmobil-begins-design-studies-for-south-east-australia-carbon-capture-hub-in-gippsland
Director, Climate Change Now Initiative, 501c3
President, Melton Engineering Services Austin
8103 Kirkham Drive
Austin, Texas 78736
(512)799-7998
ClimateDiscovery.org
ClimateChangePhoto.org
MeltonEngineering.com
Face...@Bruce.Melton.395
Inst...@Bruce.C.Melton
The Band Climate Change
Twitter - BruceCMelton1
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/00d001d98379%2402df2440%24089d6cc0%24%40chesdata.com.
Bruce Melton -- Austin, Texas
Good question, right?!
My take is it's about shovel ready tech and first to market.
Together, these two things define our capitalistic society and I
see no reason why CDR should be any different. On top of history
where less than optimal tech becomes standard because someone put
lots of money behind it and creates market share, we now have the
IRA's 45Q that virtually guarantees oil companies will be first to
market with air capture for both EOR and direct sequestration
because they have the cheapest energy. So is it good or bad that
we will be spending 10 or 100 times more than what better tech
costs?
Good probably. The challenge with irreversible tipping is time,
not money. Three $$trillion a year is little money, 3 percent of
global GDP. Existing tech that utilizes common industrial
components is simple to train together to build scale and create
market share to earn as much $trillions that will be paid for the
privilege as possible.
There will certainly be strategies and tech from Baimann 2023
that become viable, and that can eventually usurp the first to
market. But now it's a race to see who can scale first and gain
market share, just like any capitalistic race that's ever been.
The really good news is that first to market with 45Q puts us on
the road to the scaling needed in time frames that matter. All we
have to do now is shift the goalpost from additional warming to
restoration - nothing to it.
^..^
MeltOn
Director, Climate Change Now Initiative, 501c3
President, Melton Engineering Services Austin
8103 Kirkham Drive
Austin, Texas 78736
(512)799-7998
ClimateDiscovery.org
ClimateChangePhoto.org
MeltonEngineering.com
Face...@Bruce.Melton.395
Inst...@Bruce.C.Melton
The Band Climate Change
Twitter - BruceCMelton1
