This roadmap was developed by RMI in collaboration with The Bezos Earth Fund. It describes an action-oriented perspective of what is needed to rapidly scale technological greenhouse gas removal (GHGR).
To do this, the roadmap sets ambitious goals for both carbon dioxide removal (CDR) and non-CO2 greenhouse gas removal.
Accomplishing these goals will require buy-in, commitments, and execution from actors across the GHGR ecosystem. The roadmap is intended to be used as a tool for aligning actions and investments across sectors and stakeholders, including government actors at all levels, funders, GHGR communities, industry, researchers, journalists and media, and nonprofits and civil society organizations.
--
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 visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/CAHodn9-ypz8eN70HKixbauvcN9QGi54p%2B0TNR2aO%2BGR-xLBuEw%40mail.gmail.com.
"ARL represents important factors for private sector uptake beyond technology readiness, and can be determined by performing a qualitative, but fact-based, risk assessment across 17 dimensions of adoption risk spanning four core risk areas –
• Value Proposition. Assesses the ability for a new technology to meet the functionality required by the market at a price point that customers are willing to pay, to meet the market demand (a broadened definition of “product-market fit”).
• Market Acceptance Captures the target market(s) demand characteristics and risks posed by existing players -- including competitors, customers, and other value chain player
• Resource Maturity. Determines risks standing in the way of inputs that are needed to produce the technology solution.
• License to Operate. Identifies the societal (national, state, and local), non-economic risks that can hinder the deployment of a technology.
Ron and list,
With soil biochar, regardless of the CDR math, the asset is clearly the improved soil, and thus better crops, yet biochar is also highly useful in other areas and thus is a valued commodity itself in a number of non-CDR industries. Any CDR method that generates a physical asset that can be used for credit worthy collateral likely has a distinct economic advantage over CDRs that don't as credit availabilty is typically more valuable than direct investment for most business expansion needs. As you often rightfully point out, biochar is beyond the startup business phase, it is in the expansion phase, and thus the biochar industry needs an abundant availability of long-term credit more than selling founder stocks.
Likewise:
Offshore reactor-based systems, from the purely technical perspective, uses high density polyethylene-based technologies that have been been in industrial scale use for decades. As such, it can be viewed as being in an expansion phase, just expanding into the marine space. Most importantly, the actual mCDR infrastructures themselves can be largely financially valued by gross weight, or for 'scrap value'. HDPE made with bio-ethylene is a C store, and CDR MRV accounting methods for bio-HDPE production would be more precise or more reliable than most CDR methods. However, HDPE is also easy and cheap to convert into other useful products and thus it has a broad-based value as a commodity beyond the narrow value as a mCDR method. As mentioned above, biochar also has such non-CDR values as a broadly used industrial commodity.
Prioritization of bio-ethylene production for HDPE mCDR marine reactor hull production and for the general global ethylene market, as well as biochar production in such reactor-based marine infrastructures, for external CDR use on land or sea, and for the many general carbon markets, is my strongest CDR recommendation as both generate credit worthy physical commodities and both can be mutually supportive at the processing level as well as the economic level.
As a side note on feedstock processing synergies between HDPE and biochar:
Biochar production using Kudzu vines does not have many published papers, yet the woody vine biomass can obviously be used for biochar production. Interestingly, atleast from my view, is that that one of the bacterial decomposer that favor Kudzu leaves generates an impressive amount of bio-ethylene:
Ethylene Production by the Kudzu Strains of Pseudomonas syringae pv. phaseolicola Causing Halo Blight in Pueraria lobata (Willd) Ohwi
https://academic.oup.com/pcp/article-abstract/26/1/141/1861130
Using the woody biomass of the vine for biochar production and the leaves for bio-ethylene production would technically link the core feedstock needs of HDPE-based mCDR infrastructure expansion with biochars' feedstock expansion needs.
That synergistic processing combination, along with both CDRs having non-CDR commodity credit values, should earn high ratings in many of the areas of concern found in the ARL.
Best regards
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/58484cbc-0f76-4eb7-b4ea-4b1db516c3a3n%40googlegroups.com.