CRA: Finally a voice for true CDR innovation

68 views
Skip to first unread message

Greg Rau

unread,
Feb 26, 2023, 1:13:20 AM2/26/23
to Carbon Dioxide Removal

“

Advocating for technology-inclusive policies

Developing a portfolio of permanent carbon removal solutions will increase our collective odds of success. We support science-based carbon removal policies that don’t pick technology winners.”

GHR: A step toward leveling the CDR playing field.

Wil Burns

unread,
Feb 26, 2023, 1:27:01 AM2/26/23
to Carbon Dioxide Removal

I’m a bit confused, however, and concerned, about why we now have yet another carbon removal trade group. We now have the Direct Air Capture Coalition, the Carbon Business Council, and the CRA. Is this polycentric approach to advocating for carbon removal from the corporate side a good idea, or would it make sense to have one, unified, organization to do so? I get that DACC is focused on DAC, so maybe there’s some rationale there, but what are the discrete roles of the CRA and CBC in this sphere?

 

wil

 

 

 

 

 

WIL BURNS

Co-Director, Institute for Carbon Removal Law & Policy

American University

 

Visiting Professor, Environmental Policy & Culture Program, Northwestern University

 

Email: wil.b...@northwestern.edu

Mobile: 312.550.3079

https://www.american.edu/sis/centers/carbon-removal/

 

Want to schedule a call? Click on one of the following scheduling links:

 

Follow us:

 

Title: line art

 

--
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/5C52E126-693B-4B92-BE40-7D14DDCD3BCC%40sbcglobal.net.

Jim Baird

unread,
Feb 26, 2023, 10:50:53 AM2/26/23
to Wil Burns, Carbon Dioxide Removal

The elephant in the room is that all of these groups promote schemes that make energy more expensive and useful energy less abundant to a public that largely already can’t pay its energy bills.

 

Thermodynamic Geoengineering is the only CDR strategy that rectifies the situation.   

image001.jpg
image002.png
image003.png
image004.png

Ronal Larson

unread,
Feb 28, 2023, 1:55:40 AM2/28/23
to Jim Baird, Wil Burns, Carbon Dioxide Removal
Jim, Wil and list:

1.  For those not following this list closely,  Jim’s TG “elephant” is OTEC - a really old energy source., that has not yet taken off.   I bought Jim’s e-book on this yesterday and skimmed every page - at a ridiculously low cost - for me even well under the advertised sales price of $3.00.  I learned a great deal about a subject I first followed in 1973 or 74.

Jim’s book has dozens of unusual sections.  The book is mainly on OTEC, but not solely.

2.  This is to warn Jim I will be writing separately tomorrow, since the connections between OTEC and CDR are not yet well established.  I may report back, but hope any other CDR readers with an interest in OTEC get in touch with Jim or myself.  My interest is in tying biochar to OTEC.

Ron



On Feb 26, 2023, at 8:50 AM, Jim Baird <jim....@gwmitigation.com> wrote:

The elephant in the room is that all of these groups promote schemes that make energy more expensive and useful energy less abundant to a public that largely already can’t pay its energy bills.
 
Thermodynamic Geoengineering is the only CDR strategy that rectifies the situation.  


 
 
From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com On Behalf Of Wil Burns
Sent: February 25, 2023 10:27 PM
To: Carbon Dioxide Removal <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: RE: [CDR] CRA: Finally a voice for true CDR innovation
 
I’m a bit confused, however, and concerned, about why we now have yet another carbon removal trade group. We now have the Direct Air Capture Coalition, the Carbon Business Council, and the CRA. Is this polycentric approach to advocating for carbon removal from the corporate side a good idea, or would it make sense to have one, unified, organization to do so? I get that DACC is focused on DAC, so maybe there’s some rationale there, but what are the discrete roles of the CRA and CBC in this sphere?
 
wil
 
 
 
 
WIL BURNS
Co-Director, Institute for Carbon Removal Law & Policy
American University
 
Visiting Professor, Environmental Policy & Culture Program, Northwestern University
 
Mobile: 312.550.3079
 

Want to schedule a call? Click on one of the following scheduling links: 

 
Follow us:
 
<image004.png>
 
 
From: carbondiox...@googlegroups.com <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com> On Behalf Of Greg Rau
Sent: Sunday, February 26, 2023 12:13 AM
To: Carbon Dioxide Removal <carbondiox...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [CDR] CRA: Finally a voice for true CDR innovation
 

“

Advocating for technology-inclusive policies

Developing a portfolio of permanent carbon removal solutions will increase our collective odds of success. We support science-based carbon removal policies that don’t pick technology winners.”

GHR: A step toward leveling the CDR playing field.

-- 
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/5C52E126-693B-4B92-BE40-7D14DDCD3BCC%40sbcglobal.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/BL0PR04MB47058251CC9E496586C2B89DA4AE9%40BL0PR04MB4705.namprd04.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.

Jim Baird

unread,
Feb 28, 2023, 10:32:10 AM2/28/23
to Ronal Larson, Tom Goreau, Al Binger, Wil Burns, Carbon Dioxide Removal

Ron, please put my mind to ease about biochar.

 

At page 48 of the book, “Professor Tom Murphy has pointed out, “if our energy consumption grows at 2.3 percent a year—less than historical rates but enough to increase energy consumption tenfold each century—then the entire planet will reach boiling point in just four centuries.” It’s not the greenhouse effect at work; it’s irrelevant to Professor Murphy’s point whether the energy comes from fossil fuels, solar power or fairy dust. It is a matter of the waste heat given off by the production and consumption of energy. Murphy’s calculations are shocking, but you can’t argue with the laws of thermodynamics. “Anything whose growth is dependent on something that can’t grow will stop growing. Like our global economy.” Murphy says. And the way we have set up our economy it must grow to function. Dominic Michaelis and this writer, however, entered GE’s Ecomagination Challenge a few years back entitled, “The more energy produced the more the ocean’s surface is cooled”. It was an argument for an economic model that depends on growth to address the cause and effect of global warming. It is also a rebuttal to the likes of Murphy and others who claim that we must either transition now to a new economic model that doesn’t depend on growth or be forced to do so later once our current model stops functioning. “Either way, our relentless demand for growth will end,” Murphy said. In reality, we need to grow the global economy in a way that removes heat from the ocean surface, sucks carbon dioxide from the air, generates hydrogen, produces ocean alkalinity and mitigates the chemical and biological effects of ocean acidification, decreases sea-levels and storm surge and produces better outcomes for aquatic life.”

 

In view of Professor Murphy’s assessment about the thermodynamics of the exponential growth of waste heat, and our recent experience with Covid’s exponential growth, I have a  problem with any exothermal undertaking, be it pyrolysis, fission or fusion, offered as a solution to climate change.

 

Thanks

Jim

Ronal Larson

unread,
Feb 28, 2023, 6:24:05 PM2/28/23
to Jim Baird, Thomas Goreau, Al Binger, Wil Burns, Carbon Dioxide Removal
Jim and ccs

See inserts

On Feb 28, 2023, at 8:31 AM, Jim Baird <jim....@gwmitigation.com> wrote:

First, need to explain why I am supportive of OTEC.:  I met Bob Cohen in about 1974 (OTEC budget at NSF then under $1 million) and talked on-off with him maybe 10 hours per year until the early 1980s.  He retired in 1990 to Boulder and we went together to many of a local group’s monthly meetings until he died 6 years ago.  
Obituary at:
  He brought me into that group,  During much of thet time I was trying to add biochar to OTEC.  Bob insisted that was adding too much.  First,  OTEC needed to prove itself alone - no CDR, only energy.

In mid 1980’s, I also officially visited the then-operating tiny OTEC system on Hawaii’s big island.  So I was aware of OTEC advantages on-shore.


Ron, please put my mind to ease about biochar.

RWL:  Of course I was sorry that you commented on many CDR approaches, but never biochar.  I assume you are surprised that biochar is now #1 (about 90% of all credit sales).   I believe growing now with about an annual doubling (much faster than ever achieved by solar PV.  Also many fewer doublings needed.  And much smaller economic cost decline needed.

You also had a section on the temperature  difference between waste heat and CO2 impacts.  I think that answers this p 48 material below.  Biochar’s negative CO2 impacts should way overwhelm this Murphy concern.  In any case your emphasis on moving heat to deeper depths should apply to biochar’s exothermic character (which I see as a major benefit, not a drawback).  And biochar adds photosynthesis benefits which counteract Murphy as well.

 
At page 48 of the book, “Professor Tom Murphy has pointed out, “if our energy consumption grows at 2.3 percent a year—less than historical rates but enough to increase energy consumption tenfold each century—then the entire planet will reach boiling point in just four centuries.” It’s not the greenhouse effect at work; it’s irrelevant to Professor Murphy’s point whether the energy comes from fossil fuels, solar power or fairy dust. It is a matter of the waste heat given off by the production and consumption of energy. Murphy’s calculations are shocking, but you can’t argue with the laws of thermodynamics. “Anything whose growth is dependent on something that can’t grow will stop growing. Like our global economy.” Murphy says. And the way we have set up our economy it must grow to function. Dominic Michaelis and this writer, however, entered GE’s Ecomagination Challenge a few years back entitled, “The more energy produced the more the ocean’s surface is cooled”. It was an argument for an economic model that depends on growth to address the cause and effect of global warming. It is also a rebuttal to the likes of Murphy and others who claim that we must either transition now to a new economic model that doesn’t depend on growth or be forced to do so later once our current model stops functioning. “Either way, our relentless demand for growth will end,” Murphy said. In reality, we need to grow the global economy in a way that removes heat from the ocean surface, sucks carbon dioxide from the air, generates hydrogen, produces ocean alkalinity and mitigates the chemical and biological effects of ocean acidification, decreases sea-levels and storm surge and produces better outcomes for aquatic life.”
 
In view of Professor Murphy’s assessment about the thermodynamics of the exponential growth of waste heat, and our recent experience with Covid’s exponential growth, I have a  problem with any exothermal undertaking, be it pyrolysis, fission or fusion, offered as a solution to climate change.
 
Thanks
Jim

RWL:  Now to my main two combined OTEC-biochar topics:  
1.  Might the waste heat from biochar (and HTC) operations be usable in OTEC systems to raise the usual small number of degrees difference?  
The size of the OTEC plant would be dictated by the biomsss availability for biochar production.

2.   Might small island systems (type of concern to Tom Goreau) be a better economic location, even though the ocean temperature differences are smaller (being offset by biochar-related waste heat)?  
This asking about the value of building cooling,plentiful fresh water, electricity rather than H2 as energy carrier, and the lower cost of handling new land-based vs deep-ocean systems.

Above two assuming no major differences in the OTEC operation - just a larger thermal difference from a “free” waste product.

Ron



Jim Baird

unread,
Feb 28, 2023, 6:43:26 PM2/28/23
to Ronal Larson, Thomas Goreau, Al Binger, Wil Burns, Carbon Dioxide Removal

Ron, thanks for setting me straight about Biochar and it is clearly an oversight in the book.

 

Robert Cohen was of great help to Dominic Michaelis, Paul Curto and I in our OTEC efforts and I acknowledged this in the book along with other OTEC pioneers who have passed with out their visions having come to fruition.

 

Jim

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages