Calgary meeting on Direct Air Capture

rongre...@comcast.net

unread,

Mar 22, 2012, 6:41:23 PM3/22/12

to Geoengineering

List:

1. I thought this list had a very useful dialog a few months ago on the CDR technology called Direct Air Capture (DAC - sometimes "Artificial Trees"). I have just become aware of an invitation-only meeting on this topic - hosted by the group "ISEEE" at the University of Calgary on March 6 and 7. A preliminary agenda is available at:
http://www.iseee.ca/dacs/

2. Two useful recent descriptions of the dialog are given at:

http://www.economist.com/node/21550241

and
http://www.marcgunther.com/2012/03/11/direct-air-capture-of-co2-is-becoming-a-business-for-better-or-worse/

   3. Marc Gunther also had an article on the major DAC companies just as the meeting was starting at:
       http://chimalaya.org/2012/03/06/rethinking-carbon-dioxide-from-a-pollutant-to-an-asset/

     4. I gather from this material that Prof. Socolow was under considerable pressure to lower his (and APS') decidedly negative projection on costs. I wonder if any list member in attendance can comment on this controversy - that was covered nicely on this list.

     5. I also gather there was considerable unhappiness in the present emphasis of all (?) of these DAC companies away from CDR - and instead on to uses of the captured CO2 for enhanced oil/gas production and for combination with H2 for appreciably lower carbon footprint fuel production.   Any comments on these aspects - or any other part of the meeting?

Thanks in advance for any additional information.

Ron

RAU greg

unread,

Mar 22, 2012, 10:35:03 PM3/22/12

to rongre...@comcast.net, Geoengineering

Ron,

Thanks for asking:

1) Wasn't invited to Calgary.

2) As Socolow et al and more recently House et al. PNAS 108:20428–20433 have shown, if your game is removing CO2 from air, concentrating molecular CO2 from air is probably the last thing you want to do because of the prohibitive thermodynamics and hence cost. But what really irks me about the DAC crowd is they act as though they are inventing air capture, e.g., the Economist article's subtitle that gushes:

"The idea of pulling carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere is a beguiling one. Could it ever become real?"

or Marc Gunther's quote:

"Most scientists believe removing CO2 from the air is expensive and impractical to do on a global scale."

Let me be the first to break the good news; air capture is occurring all around us, to the tune of about 17 Gt CO2/yr. That's right, the equivalent of about 57% of anthro CO2 emissions is thankfully already being removed from air by natural process for free. I'd say that is a pretty good example of effective, low cost, global scale air capture, in contrast to the latest $1000/tonne CO2 figure of House et al. So, if one is interested in increasing air capture, the obvious places to start are figuring out how to 1) increase global photosynthesis (afforestation, ocean fetilization), 2) decrease respiration of biomass (biochar), or my favorite, 3) increasing mineral weathering rates. Then there are hybrids of 1 -3. Why start with a highly artificial and expensive process of concentrating molecular CO2 when nature provides much lower cost and less risky examples that are already in global scale operation?

3) Haven't read Marc's ebook, but assume it's along the lines of the Economist article. Perhaps he'll send me a free, autographed copy

4) See above. I've submitted a followup letter to PNAS, for what that's worth.

5) Good point - why insist on concentrated, molecular CO2 as your end product? Nature doesn't. One has to conclude that EOR is their end game, in which case this generates a net air CO2 source rather than a sink: In standard CO2-EOR, 3 tonnes of CO2 are generated from product per tonne of CO2 injected. You can be sure that oil companies will want to increase (worsen) this 3/1 ratio if they are paying >$100/tonne CO2 injected. Traditional geologic sources of CO2 for EOR are less than 1/10th this cost.

So what is the DAC business model, why is venture capital interested, and what does it have to do with stabilizing air CO2? Any Calgarians care to fill us mortals in?

Your humble messenger,

Greg

From: "rongre...@comcast.net" <rongre...@comcast.net>
To: Geoengineering <Geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thu, March 22, 2012 3:41:23 PM
Subject: [geo] Calgary meeting on Direct Air Capture - thoughts?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

Ken Caldeira

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 7:16:42 AM3/23/12

to gh...@sbcglobal.net, Geoengineering, soc...@princeton.edu, Howard Herzog, John Schellnhuber

"So what is the DAC business model, why is venture capital interested, and what does it have to do with stabilizing air CO2? " -- GH Rau

Greg, I think you hit the nail on the head.

If we think of direct air capture as negative emissions, then air capture is basically a more expensive way to reduce net emissions.

So, the only plausible business model is serving activities where CO2 is needed where direct air capture may be able to provide the CO2 at lower cost (or at least more conveniently), i.e., the goal is to profit primarily by providing CO2 as a commodity.

You mention enhanced oil recovery (EOR), which of course involves a net flux of carbon from geologic formations to the atmosphere. Another possible application might be military applications where you want to make jet fuels on a nuclear powered aircraft carrier using atmospheric CO2 and seawater.

If the above framing is correct, then direct air capture is more about seeking profits from oil companies and the military-industrial complex than it is about reducing climate risk.

As the IPCC concluded in its 2005 Special Report on Carbon Capture and Storage, there just aren't enough products that need CO2 as an input for provision of CO2 for industrial uses to be a significant contributor to climate risk reduction.

If EOR is really a primary target application, then direct air capture is more about increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations than it is about decreasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations; it is more about increasing climate risk than decreasing climate risk.

It would be interesting to hear from the direct air capture companies whether they see themselves as being in the business of climate-risk reduction, and if they answer in the affirmative, it would be interesting hear their rationale.

_______________
Ken Caldeira

Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
+1 650 704 7212 kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu
http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira

YouTube:
Climate change and the transition from coal to low-carbon electricity
Crop yields in a geoengineered climate

Ken Caldeira

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 9:57:26 AM3/23/12

to Robert Tulip, gh...@sbcglobal.net, Geoengineering, soc...@princeton.edu, Howard Herzog, John Schellnhuber

In my previous missive, by 'direct air capture', I was referring to capture of CO2 from air in centralized industrial facilities.

On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 2:21 PM, Robert Tulip <rtuli...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:

Hello Ken,

I'm an advocate of direct air capture. I've followed this board for a while and hope this is an opportune moment to comment.

My view is that large scale ocean based algae production can provide a geoengineering method that addresses both CO2 capture and solar radiation management, producing commercially valuable fuel, food, fertilizer and fabric in a method that is entirely ecologically sustainable.

Algae production can combine the best features of Solar Radiation Management and CO2 Capture in a method that is funded by production of commercial commodities. Algae is the most efficient photosynthesis crop, and can be produced in controlled ocean environments, using energy from tide, wave, current, wind and sun to mimic the original process of deposition of fossil fuel, at very low operating and capital costs, if done on large enough scale.

Please see my description at http://rtulip.net/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Algae_Biofuel_Feedstock_System_Provisional_Patent.285191915.pdf

This is all public domain. I am more concerned about contributing to public goods than anything else. I just want to know if these ideas are feasible, so would welcome expert comment. My estimate is that controlled algae production on 0.1% of the world ocean could stabilise the global climate and deliver a path to steady reduction in CO2 concentration, through sustainable fuel, food, fabric and fertilizer production.

Kind Regards

Robert Tulip

Program Manager
Mining for Development
Australian Agency for International Development
www.ausaid.gov.au

Hawkins, Dave

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 10:19:20 AM3/23/12

to kcal...@gmail.com, gh...@sbcglobal.net, Geoengineering, soc...@princeton.edu, Howard Herzog, John Schellnhuber

I participated in the Calgary DAC meeting and in my remarks my primary message was the need to resist the pressure to morph the technology into a commodity CO2 production technique. If DAC earns a reputation as just another industrial gas production technique it will encounter well-deserved opposition.

As to whether DAC has a future as a genuine carbon-negative technology, this is an economic proposition. Currently, it seems pretty expensive but as has been pointed out, the actual costs won’t be known until someone tries it in a real-world context and there may be a role for it to address remaining emissions after all the less expensive options have been deployed. In my view, this argues for a modest R&D program to build a few demo plants.

I understand the temptation for today’s developers to look at the EOR market as a way to do some learning by doing but I believe it is the wrong path to follow. Such a path would create economic relationships that could wind up impeding the policy changes we need to protect the climate, rather than helping to speed those changes.

Robert H. Socolow

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 10:50:16 AM3/23/12

to gh...@sbcglobal.net, rongre...@comcast.net, Geoengineering

From a Calgarian mortal to the geoengineering group: My keynote at the Calgary meeting can be found on my website, or simply by clicking on:

http://www.princeton.edu/mae/people/faculty/socolow/12-03-07-Calgary-Summit-keynote.pdf

Rob

Robert Tulip

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 9:21:01 AM3/23/12

to kcal...@gmail.com, gh...@sbcglobal.net, Geoengineering, soc...@princeton.edu, Howard Herzog, John Schellnhuber

Hello Ken,

I'm an advocate of direct air capture. I've followed this board for a while and hope this is an opportune moment to comment.

My view is that large scale ocean based algae production can provide a geoengineering method that addresses both CO2 capture and solar radiation management, producing commercially valuable fuel, food, fertilizer and fabric in a method that is entirely ecologically sustainable.

Algae production can combine the best features of Solar Radiation Management and CO2 Capture in a method that is funded by production of commercial commodities. Algae is the most efficient photosynthesis crop, and can be produced in controlled ocean environments, using energy from tide, wave, current, wind and sun to mimic the original process of deposition of fossil fuel, at very low operating and capital costs, if done on large enough scale.

Please see my description at http://rtulip.net/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/Algae_Biofuel_Feedstock_System_Provisional_Patent.285191915.pdf

This is all public domain. I am more concerned about contributing to public goods than anything else. I just want to know if these ideas are feasible, so would welcome expert comment. My estimate is that controlled algae production on 0.1% of the world ocean could stabilise the global climate and deliver a path to steady reduction in CO2 concentration, through sustainable fuel, food, fabric and fertilizer production.

Kind Regards

Robert Tulip

Program Manager

Mining for Development

Australian Agency for International Development

www.ausaid.gov.au

From: Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu>
To: gh...@sbcglobal.net
Cc: Geoengineering <Geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; soc...@princeton.edu; Howard Herzog <hjhe...@mit.edu>; John Schellnhuber <schell...@pik-potsdam.de>
Sent: Friday, 23 March 2012 10:16 PM

Robert Tulip

unread,

Mar 23, 2012, 10:54:57 AM3/23/12

to kcal...@gmail.com, gh...@sbcglobal.net, Geoengineering, soc...@princeton.edu, Howard Herzog, John Schellnhuber

Ken

The best way to establish centralized industrial facilities for CO2 capture is to build large scale plants that convert CO2 into profitable commercial products, with low capital and operating costs and simple replicable technology.

Ocean based algae production, as proposed in diagrams linked below, with use of fresh water bags for pumping and stability, can meet this objective, in my view.

CO2 source for algae production could come from 'artificial trees', from concentrated CO2 from offshore mines such as Gorgon on Australia's Northwest Shelf, from coal fired power stations, or just from the air. If CO2 is used to grow algae, it can produce a range of commercial commodities which pay for the whole process, addressing peak oil and food security, and enabling self-funded expansion.

Ocean trumps land as a production location because wave and tide provide free pumping, because raising nutrient-rich water from below the thermocline mimics the original process of petroleum deposition, because ocean does not displace food production, and because ocean based production is ecologically beneficial, for example through local cooling near coral reefs.

Controlled ocean based algae production can convert insolation into heat energy, and then into commodities, more efficiently than other methods such as space based systems, while also removing atmospheric carbon at large scale in order to rapidly stabilise the global climate.

I would welcome interest in research and development of these concepts.

Thanks

Robert Tulip

AusAID

O Morton

unread,

Mar 24, 2012, 8:06:56 AM3/24/12

to geoengineering

A few points as someone at the meeting and, it appears, a gusher...

As Tim Fox pointed out in Calgary, the lack of any near-term
likelihood of large carbon markets paying substantial prices has
changed the terms of discussion. If DAC is to have any chance near
term (and my feeling was that the consensus of the people on the APS
panel that I talked to remains that it really doesn't) then it needs
to be able to sell carbon dioxide into a market that both values the
product fairly highly and actually exists. That is what the companies
are looking with EOR and algae. The hope is that if the companies can
get established in one of these niches, learning-by-doing effects and
increased resources for R&D can drive the cost of capture low enough
to be applicable more widely to climate issues.I would judge that for
most of the guys working on this the selling CO2 is a means to an end,
and if the climate relevant end were to disappear, so would their
interest in and commitment to the technology. That said, we all know
that people can get into a biz for idealistic reasons and stay out of
inertia after those reasons dissipate.

An exception here is Peter Eisenberger. Peter sees DAC and fuel-making
as providing a new anthropic loop in the carbon cycle, and seems to
have little interest in eventual sequestration. I think that's an
interesting idea if somewhat ahead of its time, for a fairly high
value of somewhat.

When Greg says:
Why start with a highly artificial and expensive process of
concentrating molecular CO2 when nature provides much lower cost and
less risky examples that are already in global scale operation?

it seems to me that there are two answers. One is "No one says you
have to. Enhanced weathering is very interesting and I applaud that
you work on it. But there should be a strong ex ante supposition that
looking at more methods and technological development pathways is a
better idea than looking at fewer, and if some people are looking at
different things then that's their right". The other is that
concentrated carbon dioxide is a sellable product. I'm not sure how
hard it would be to get an enhanced weathering scheme certified in a
way that it could get carbon credits even for a VER market. It will
obviously never be applicable to a market where having concentrated
carbon dioxide to sell is part of the point.

As the meeting was about DAC, not negative-emission techs more
generally, doesn't seem that surprising that weathering wasn't an
issue there. (There was a very interesting poster about direct
seawater capture.)

Dave's point that:

If DAC earns a reputation as just another industrial gas production
technique it will encounter well-deserved opposition.

Is perhaps incomplete. I don't think industrial gas production
companies in general face a lot of opposition. if DAC becomes an
industrial gas production enterprise *which trades on climate claims
it can't back up*, then opposition seems likely to be strong (cf
biofuels). If it just does its thing, then it's not clear anyone would
care that much one way or another.

All this said, it does seem to me, as I wrote, that if through
brilliance today's enthusiasts confound the expectations of other
engineers and bring DAC costs down far enough for some quasi-
commercial niches those niches are likely to be self limiting. If DAC
can meet them profitably and they are of any significant size then
carbon capture approaches applied to high-CO2 point-sources will move
in and outcompete them.

This seems to help in answering Greg's question "why is venture
capital interested". I don't think it is, very much. Marc Gunther's
book reports that Arch, the VCs who bought into Lackner's technology,
are looking into selling the IP and moving on. The other firms seem to
depend more on angels than VC. Angels have different motives, lack the
same need for exit strategies, and are more easily moved by non-
commercial motives. And the risk profile is likely too high for a lot
of VC types. Remember that a) a significant number of people see the
APS costs as too low and b) the companies have to beat them by more
than a factor of four to stand a chance.

Hope that helps, o

> +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.eduhttp://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira

>
> YouTube:
> Climate change and the transition from coal to low-carbon electricity

> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9LaYCbYCxo>

> Crop yields in a geoengineered climate

> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0LCXNoIu-c>

>
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 3:35 AM, RAU greg <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Ron,
>
> Thanks for asking:
>
> 1) Wasn't invited to Calgary.
>

> 2) As Socolow et al and more recently House et al. PNAS 108:20428-20433
> <tel:20428%E2%80%9320433> have shown, if your game is removing CO2 from

> From: "rongretlar...@comcast.net" <rongretlar...@comcast.net>
> To: Geoengineering <Geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Thu, March 22, 2012 3:41:23 PM
> Subject: [geo] Calgary meeting on Direct Air Capture - thoughts?
>
> List:
>
> 1. I thought this list had a very useful dialog a few months ago on
> the CDR technology called Direct Air Capture (DAC - sometimes
> "Artificial Trees"). I have just become aware of an invitation-only
> meeting on this topic - hosted by the group "ISEEE" at the University of
> Calgary on March 6 and 7. A preliminary agenda is available at:

> http://www.iseee.ca/dacs/<http://www.iseee.ca/dacs/>

>
> 2. Two useful recent descriptions of the dialog are given at:
>
> http://www.economist.com/node/21550241

> <http://www.economist.com/node/21550241>
>
> and
>
> http://www.marcgunther.com/2012/03/11/direct-air-capture-of-co2-is-becom
> ing-a-business-for-better-or-worse/
> <http://www.marcgunther.com/2012/03/11/direct-air-capture-of-co2-is-beco
> ming-a-business-for-better-or-worse/>

>
> 3. Marc Gunther also had an article on the major DAC companies just
> as the meeting was starting at:
>
> http://chimalaya.org/2012/03/06/rethinking-carbon-dioxide-from-a-polluta
> nt-to-an-asset/
>
> 4. I gather from this material that Prof. Socolow was under
> considerable pressure to lower his (and APS') decidedly negative
> projection on costs. I wonder if any list member in attendance can
> comment on this controversy - that was covered nicely on this list.
>
> 5. I also gather there was considerable unhappiness in the present
> emphasis of all (?) of these DAC companies away from CDR - and instead
> on to uses of the captured CO2 for enhanced oil/gas production and for
> combination with H2 for appreciably lower carbon footprint fuel
> production. Any comments on these aspects - or any other part of the
> meeting?
>
> Thanks in advance for any additional information.
>
> Ron
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "geoengineering" group.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com> .
> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "geoengineering" group.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com

> <mailto:geoengineering%2Bunsu...@googlegroups.com> .
> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

Ken Caldeira

unread,

Mar 24, 2012, 9:43:44 AM3/24/12

to omeco...@gmail.com, geoengineering

[ disclaimer -- this post is clearly written from the position of being a concerned citizen and contains normative and prescriptive statements that I cannot make in my role as a scientist. ]

I don't think industrial gas production companies in general face a lot of opposition -- O Morton

"Industrial gas production companies" face a lot of opposition from me.

Fracking is generating additional opposition to these companies, and I think it is just a matter of time before those interested in decreasing climate risk and those concerned about local consequences of fracking practices join forces to oppose these companies.

Natural gas has been getting an undeserved free ride.

In a time of exponentially increasing demand for energy services, emissions reduction require that we construct an energy system with exponentially decreasing emissions per unit energy services provided. Anything less is a recipe for increased emissions.

Switching to fuels that emit fractionally less CO2 while energy demand is increasing exponentially is clearly a path to increasing emissions.

Industries that depend on using that atmosphere as a waste dump from greenhouse gases should not be permitted to expand.

RAU greg

unread,

Mar 24, 2012, 7:02:53 PM3/24/12

to omeco...@gmail.com, geoengineering

Thanks, Oliver, for your helpful perspectives, and thanks Rob, Ken, David, and
others

for the input.

Here's my problem: The negative evaluations of the artificial concentration of
CO2 from air (CCA?) are being used to pass judgement on all possibilities for
direct air capture of CO2 (DAC) and the uptake portion of carbon dioxide removal
from air (CDR). As the APS and House et al have shown, CCA is probably
irrelevant for DAC/CDR because of the thermodyamics and because it is
concentrating carbon in a form (CO2) that is not benign and has limited
usefulness.

So let's then turn our attention to other DACs and CDR that don't concentrate
CO2 from air, that we know safely and cost-effectively work, and that are
currently operating at something like 17Gt CO2/yr. If pulling an extra 1GT of
CO2/yr is the goal, it would seem much cheaper, safer, and more timely to figure
out how to increase existing, zero-cost, natural DAC by 1/17th (6%), than using
$1000/tonne CCA.

I therefore find statements like the following very misleading:
1) First things first: Virtually all large-scale industrial CO2 sources should
be decarbonized before DAC is deployed.
2) Not only is DAC much more expensive, but DAC requires low-C power to be
carbon-negative.
3) DAC could compensate cost-effectively for the last fractions of fossil fuels
use.
4) DAC may be used someday to reduce the atmospheric CO2 concentration. At very
large scale, it may well compete favorably with biological strategies for CO2
removal."
R. Socolow at Calgary
http://www.princeton.edu/mae/people/faculty/socolow/12-03-07-Calgary-Summit-keynote.pdf

My view:
1) natural DACs are in operation now and are saving our bacon from the full
effects large-scale industrial CO2 sources. It is dangerous and unnecessary to
wait on DAC, esp R&D, until large-scale industrial CO2 sources are mitigated
(when fossil fuel runs out?).
2) natural DACs are low if not zero cost and fractionally scaling them up will
not cost anywhere near the $1000/tonne CO2 price tag as for CCA. DAC via mineral
weathering is exothermic, not energy consuming (excluding mass handing and any
schemes to increase kinetics).
3) natural DACs are very cost effectively (though not completely) compensating
for fossil fuel use right now.
4) ditto. Capacity wise, CCA will never compete for biological CO2 uptake and
doesn't need to. It's interesting to contemplate what modified or synthetic
biology might be able to do (i.e., why not build on a few billion years of CO2
uptake experience rather than start from scratch with CCA?). But the bio C
storage is leaky (unless you use e.g., biochar or CROPS). In any case,
exothermic, geochemical uptake of CO2 is the primary way the earth removes and
safely stores excess CO2. There are ways to accelerate this that may cost
<1/10th that of CCA. The end product of mineral weather can be environmentally
beneficial and could have $$ value.

Bottom line: Please stop equating CCA with all DAC possibilities. The outlook
for DAC is far less depressing than the CCAers have concluded. As in any
potential, large-scale endeavor, the environmental, societal, and economic
impacts of any given DAC approach needs to be evaluated and weighed against
alternative technology/actions. How about an APS style study to address these?
How about a meeting that explores the true DAC possibilities? Angels welcome.

Thanks again and regards,
Greg

Ninad Bondre

unread,

Mar 24, 2012, 7:47:15 PM3/24/12

to geoengineering

* This email went out to Ken and Oliver earlier but not the full group
due to an oversight on my part.

Ken,

You say, "Industries that depend on using that atmosphere as a waste
dump from greenhouse gases should not be permitted to expand." Let us
evaluate this in the context of recent trends in the United States.

As consumption reduces due to increased efficiency and other factors,
production of oil and gas in the US is in fact increasing (http://
www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/business/energy-environment/inching-toward-energy-independence-in-america.html?pagewanted=1&hp).
The longstanding goal of energy independence and its ramifications for
national security are providing an irresistible incentive for policies
favouring exploration and drilling on a massive scale. At least the
NYTimes article suggests real momentum. As the article states, despite
promises in 2008 of combating global warming and discouraging fossil-
fuel use, Obama "has opened new federal lands and waters to drilling,
trumpeted increases in oil and gas production and de-emphasized the
challenges of climate change." A recent op-ed in the same paper by a
former diplomat who now teaches courses on energy security does not
mention climate change or other environmental issues at all ((http://
www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/opinion/oil-under-our-noses.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss).

What/who/ can prompt substantial and lasting shifts in the politics
and policies of energy in the US, and how? Can those who matter be
coaxed to look beyond the usual rhetoric of national security, energy
independence and self-interest to include responsibility, reflection
and re-evaluation? One would imagine elections to provide the
opportunity for concerned citizens to make a statement, assuming
sufficient mobilisation. But US voters have rather limited choices --
two parties that, despite being separated by a seemingly bottomless
abyss, tend to take surprisingly similar positions on this issue.

Ninad

PS - A potential silver lining is the increase in efficiency. But as
David Owen points out (http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/03/19/
the-siren-song-of-energy-efficiency), past increases in efficiency
have only fueled consumption as savings were simply reinvested.

---
Ninad R. Bondre, Ph.D.
Science Editor
International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) Secretariat
The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Box 50005, 104 05 Stockholm, Sweden
www.igbp.net

On Mar 24, 1:43 pm, Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu>
wrote:

> > dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira

>
> > > YouTube:
> > > Climate change and the transition from coal to low-carbon electricity
> > > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9LaYCbYCxo>
> > > Crop yields in a geoengineered climate
> > > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0LCXNoIu-c>
>
> > > On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 3:35 AM, RAU greg <gh...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > Ron,
>
> > > Thanks for asking:
>
> > > 1) Wasn't invited to Calgary.
>
> > > 2) As Socolow et al and more recently House et al. PNAS 108:20428-20433
> > > <tel:20428%E2%80%9320433> have shown, if your game is removing CO2 from
> > > air, concentrating molecular CO2 from air is probably the last thing you
> > > want to do
>

> ...
>
> read more »

Marc Gunther

unread,

Mar 25, 2012, 2:10:02 PM3/25/12

to geoengineering

Like Oliver, I attended the Calgary conference and I believe that air
capture technology is worth pursuing--not as a substitute for CCS,
surely not as a substitute for mitigation but as another pathway that
could help move the world closer (yes, yes, not fast enough, not far
enough, I know) to a low-carbon or no-carbon economy.

I agree with everything that Oliver said so well, but want to add to
his comment about the financing of the DAC startups. As best as I can
tell, Bill Gates, Edgar Bronfman Jr. and the late Gary Comer invested
in these companies primarily because they believe that the technology
has the potential to do good. However, as I report in my book (Suck It
Up: How carbon capture technology can help solve the climate crisis--
it's just $1.99 on Amazon, Greg!), Warburg Pincus, a big private
equity firm, is seriously considering an investment in Global
Thermostat. One cam safely assume that their investment is financial,
and based on revenues that may be generated in the short to medium
term by using CO2 for EOR or to feed algae. So Ken Caldeira's and Dave
Hawkins' concerns are certainly relevant.

What to me is interesting about DAC is that it may help to reframe the
politcal debate about fossil fuels and climate change. It's a reminder
that the climate problem isn't caused by fossil fuels per se, but by
the waste they generate, i.e., CO2. The opens the door to a productive
conversation about why the fossil fuel industry shouldn't be required
to clean up after itself. You can call this extended producer
responsibility or just see it as another example of "All I really need
to know I learned in kindergarten."

Marc Gunther
www.marcgunther.com

> ...
>
> read more »

rongre...@comcast.net

unread,

Mar 25, 2012, 3:02:32 PM3/25/12

to Robert H. Socolow, Geoengineering, gh...@sbcglobal.net, Ken Caldeira, Oliver Morton

Prof. Socolow, list, etal

1. Thanks for your DAC response (in full below).   I have now spent a good bit of time on the excellent Ppt you prepared for the Calgary meeting, and I have also re-read the full APS report.

        If anyone has a way of getting more of such Calgary-presented PPt material made available, that would be very helpful. Anyone know of any plans to make more of the Calgary dialog available?

2. We have now had plenty of time for some defense from DAC supporters. It is unfortunate that there has been none. It would seem you have won the battle - but I still hope to hear more from the four DAC corporations or anyone else at the Calgary meeting.   I support the strong rejection of DAC by Dr. Caldeira, but we should hear from proponents

3.   In the middle of your PPt, there is brief mention (and rejection) of two biological alternatives - a) afforestation/reforestation and b) BECS/BECCS - because of insufficient land. In your main APS report, this was covered in more detail, where there was also identification of c) Biochar. I assume that you would also reject that (my) option, for the same (land availability) reason - but guess it was Biochar-beneficial that you did not (?) mention Biochar in Calgary

      This is to try to convince you (and this list) that all three biomass options have an unrecognized (and sufficient - faster than your 100-year scenario) CDR potential.   This will be as brief as I can make it - but glad to add more, should I have not been convincing below.

      I accept as reasonable your proposed removal of 100 ppm CO2 - and agree with your equating this to 1500 Gt CO2 = 400 Gt C

4. As Step 1, I assume that the assumed 400 Gt C can/should be separated into two equal parts for a) (additional 200 Gt C of standing biomass) and b/c) (the BECS and/or Biochar options).

    I will not go into detail on the a)-forestation 200 Gt C option. This is a 10% increase on the present (approximate) biomass (including below ground) amount of carbon - of about 2000 Gt C.   One reference could be (list respondent) Oliver Morton's excellent book on Photosynthesis (p 300 top; more coming on this book). I don't believe this 2000 Gt C value is controversial and a 10% increase over 50 years is only about 0.2% added per year (but hopefully to be finished well earlier, with an incentive of about $1/tree??))

     If we assume this takes place on 2 Gha, this assumes an eventual 100 t C/ha - which is below present standing biomass levels for many parts of the world - and likely to be obtainable in 50 years. This is roughly the approach proposed by Dr. Jim Hansen, as he strives for 350 ppm.   Present pasture land is about twice this much area.

5. My second step is to choose an alternative 20 year intermediate to your 100 year and 10 year "wedges". Rather than set the upper limit to achieve the needed 200 Gt C (which would give a needed 10 Gt C/yr), I suggest that an appropriate annual b/c) limiting amount is about half that - or 5 Gt C/yr. One justification for this 5 Gt C/yr value is found on p 157 of a recent study released by WWF and Ecofys, with the pertinent part found at
       http://www.ecofys.com/files/files/wwf_ecofys_2011_theenergyreport_part2.pdf

    On p 157, the WWF-Ecofys authors show that (after allocating more than 40% of year 2050 total energy to the biomass sector), that there is approximately an equal technically available additional 150 Exajoules of Biomass still available.   Dividing by 30 GJ/tonne C, this gives 5 Gt C/yr - as identified above. This value is approximately half as much as identified by Profs. Johannes Lehmann and Tim Lenton. Admittedly this is very large, but less daunting than anything in your scenarios.

6.   Thirdly, replacing your single wedge by a 20-year wedge and then a 30-year rectangle (with a total period of 50 years - in part to equate to your own energy-neutral wedge periods), I propose (0.5*20 yrs + 1*30 yrs)*5 Gt C/yr = (50+150) Gt C = 200 Gt C (as desired/assumed).

    The still unjustified value in this computation is the 20 year initial-introduction period. This is not critical to the argument, but I think 20 years is reasonable if we treat the introduction as urgent. I am thinking of numerous relatively small (20 MW-like?; 15-20 km collection radius) pyrolysis units also supplying either electricity and/or process heat. The Ecofys system primarily uses biomass for transport sector fuels - so there can be a part of the Biochar (not through BECS) achieved by modifying some of those schemes. This use of new already identified land does not alter the WWF/Ecofys scenario.

    I believe that the same individuals (several billion) who will be planting the 200 Gt C in new forests are also available (and already skilled and needing employment) for the harvesting for Biochar (and BECS).

     Biochar can have an added BECS, but the reverse is not possible. I favor Biochar over BECS also because of the extensive out-year values from placing the carbon near the surface rather than deep underground. In addition to the obvious CO2 removal and energy values, these values include reduced water needs, conserved nutrients, reduced N20 and methane release, more food, jobs, and rural economic development, and of course added soil productivity in general (2 -3 times as much from 500-year-old "terra preta" soils in the Amazon).   I have not seen an LCA that shows that the out-year benefits can/will exceed the value of doubling the energy and CO2 sequestration values in the first year via BECS (but with no-out-year benefits) - but I think Biochar will win out in most locations because of the difficulties that CCS is (already) facing.

7. To summarize - I hope/believe I have presented a reasonable scenario for BECs and/or Biochar that meets your (Prof Socolow's) scenario- and would welcome comments on all of the above-stated assumptions.

       As one point of reference, note that Prof. Socolow's 100 year DAC scenario has achieved only 25% (or 100 Gt C sequestered out of the needed 400) in the first 50 years. The above Biochar scenario has achieved twice as much (the full 200 Gt C) in a 50 year period (say by 2065).

     I am preparing (today?) several other responses pertinent to other recent DAC inputs by Greg Rau, Oliver Morton, etc., that will get into the economics - which I believe are as good as CCS, and are affordable - and way less than DAC economics.


Prof. Socolow - thanks again for your response (next) that allowed this extension of your DAC analysis

Ron

From: "Robert H. Socolow" <soc...@Princeton.EDU>
To: gh...@sbcglobal.net, rongre...@comcast.net, "Geoengineering" <Geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 8:50:16 AM
Subject: RE: [geo] Calgary meeting on Direct Air Capture - thoughts?

rongre...@comcast.net

unread,

Mar 25, 2012, 10:11:39 PM3/25/12

to omeco...@gmail.com, geoengineering

Oliver, cc list:

   1. Thanks for this response below. I don't believe that you have been specifically identified on this list as the author of the "Economist" summary report that I identified (below, on the 22nd).   Am I correct that this (unsigned) was your article?

   2.   I have no real questions on either the "Economist" article or the following. Not being there, and not knowing much about DAC, I judge you have done a fine job in your reporting. Your "Economist" editors are to be commended for getting you there and getting your report out so quickly.

3.   As I tried to learn more after I read your yesterday posting (below), I learned that you had written a book, on photosynthesis: "Eating the Sun: How Plants Power the Planet."    Fortuitously, my nearest library had a copy and I have just finished reading most of it. (as you recommended early in the book, I chose to come back to the first several chapters - so I still couldn't pass a simple test on the details of photosynthesis - the main topic of this book). But I was surprised how much was devoted to (your term and I like it) the "carbon climate crisis" (will shorten this to 3C - because you use the term "C3" a lot as a form of sugar)

4.   I was particularly delighted that you had so much that relates to Biochar - although never mentioning that word (which was coined in 2007 - after you finished the book). Out of your 15 pages of citations, fewer than ten were from 2006 and only 2-3 from 2007, so it is clear you could not really discuss Biochar in the book.

       You clearly have had great access to James Lovelock - who has said (paraphrasing) that Biochar is the only 3C solution.    Could you now support Dr. Lovelock (and myself) on Biochar - and specifically the (very aggressive) scenario about which I wrote earlier today in a message commenting on Professor Socolow's APS report and his Ppt prepared for Calgary?

5. I am partly writing this note to carry on the biomass-3C push of a former Geo list member: Dr. Peter Read. Peter recruited me to this list - after we met (barely) at a 2007 Australia Biochar Conference.   You clearly alsso had good access to Peter. Others reading your book and perhaps some on this list will not be aware that Peter died 24 Nov, 2009. For some other leads to his biomass - 3C thoughts, see an obituary at
     http://www.feasta.org/2009/12/08/obituary-dr-peter-read/

   The main biomass-3C connection in your book relates to the conversations you must have had with Peter.   I would therefore appreciate hearing anything further you might have on Peter's or your thinking on the present CDR thread re Biochar.

6.   Mostly though I write this to encourage anyone interested in this biomass side of CDR to read your "Eating...Sun" book. You have written about almost everything that Biochar offers in addition to 3C (soils, water, nutrients, heat and excess CO3 effects, NPP, etc) I also found numerous excellent quantitative material - all written in very clear readable prose - probably the clearest reading I have yet found on biomass, energy, and 3C. A few footnotes and no citations - but easy to follow up on specific cites (for instance there are 8 for Dr. Lovelock's Gaia work). Other names that have sometimes appeared on this Geo list are Ken Caldeira, Robert Socolow, Tim Lenton and Alex Kleidon. Thanks for writing this very interesting and pertinent book.

Again, thanks for the 2 main messages which most of the list will have read.

Ron

From: "O Morton" <omeco...@gmail.com>
To: "geoengineering" <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2012 6:06:56 AM
Subject: [geo] Re: Calgary meeting on Direct Air Capture - thoughts?

Ken Caldeira

unread,

Mar 26, 2012, 4:04:29 AM3/26/12

to John Gorman, rongre...@comcast.net, Geoengineering, Oliver Morton

I do not have a strong objection to Direct Air Capture, by which I am referring to direct air capture at centralized facilities using industrial processes. I am not commenting on distributed methods of direct air capture using biological means or chemical weathering.

I have an objection to presenting industrialized direct air capture as something that has good potential for substantially reducing climate risk this century.

Were I running a federal research program, I would support research into industrialized direct air capture.

I was responding to Greg Rau's question about business model. Insofar as these companies are real businesses, they must be in the business of selling CO2, not reducing climate risk.

There is a danger in presenting industrialized Direct Air Capture as something that can substantially and affordably reduce climate risk this century. It can give people the impression that it is OK to emit CO2 now because if things do get really bad, we will be able to suck it back out of the atmosphere later.

It should not be represented as a serious candidate for near-term climate risk reduction. Doing so could increase climate risk this century.

On the other hand, industrialized Direct Air Capture might play a role in climate risk reduction in the end game. For example, maybe climate change is a real disaster, we have already deployed SRM and nearly all anthropogenic sources of CO2 have been eliminated. In this case, industrialized air capture of CO2 might be a way to get out of continued SRM deployment.

-----

Incidentally, I notice that the term "Direct Air Capture" generates a lot of confusion, since plants and distributed chemical weathering processes also capture CO2 directly from the air, yet people often use 'DAC' to refer only to centralized industrial direct air capture of CO2. We need a clear term that refers to these centralized industrial direct air capture approaches and distinguishes them from distributed biological or geochemical approaches.

On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 8:44 AM, John Gorman <gor...@waitrose.com> wrote:

" the strong rejection of DAC by Dr. Caldeira", Is this available somewhere? did I miss it?

thanks

john gorman

----- Original Message -----

From: rongre...@comcast.net

To: Robert H. Socolow ; Geoengineering

Cc: gh...@sbcglobal.net ; Ken Caldeira ; Oliver Morton

Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 8:02 PM

Subject: Re: [geo] Calgary meeting on Direct Air Capture - thoughts?

rongre...@comcast.net

unread,

Mar 27, 2012, 1:00:21 AM3/27/12

to marc gunther, geoengineering

Mark, CC List

   This is mainly to support your last paragraph below on fossil fuel corporation responsibilities. It is also to comment on your book.

   Both responses through further inserts below.

From: "Marc Gunther" <marc.g...@gmail.com>
To: "geoengineering" <geoengi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 12:10:02 PM
Subject: [geo] Re: Calgary meeting on Direct Air Capture - thoughts?

Like Oliver, I attended the Calgary conference and I believe that air
capture technology is worth pursuing--not as a substitute for CCS,
surely not as a substitute for mitigation but as another pathway that
could help move the world closer (yes, yes, not fast enough, not far
enough, I know) to a low-carbon or no-carbon economy.

     [RWL1:   In the opening note in this thread, I cited your 11 March report on the Calgary meeting
   http://www.marcgunther.com/2012/03/11/direct-air-capture-of-co2-is-becoming-a-business-for-better-or-worse/
I have just re-read that and you seem to have already captured well the recent comments on this list.

    Re your phrase above "move the world closer",   I see quite a big difference between using the captured CO2 to make fuels and using it for EOR. Could you comment on how the attendees in Calgary handled these two (and any other) options for the DAC output?

    This question is in part related to the 7:21 minute Carbon Engineering video, which you introduced in your last sentence at the above site. One minute before the end, the young engineer says that the necessary CO2 for a gallon of synthetic petrol would cost a dollar. Could you (or anyone) say a) what that relates to in $/tonne CO2, and b) what that is as a fraction of the final cost of the gas. If the remaining costs only quadrupal the price to $4.00/gallon , I can get behind DAC enthusiastically.]

I agree with everything that Oliver said so well, but want to add to
his comment about the financing of the DAC startups. As best as I can
tell, Bill Gates, Edgar Bronfman Jr. and the late Gary Comer invested
in these companies primarily because they believe that the technology
has the potential to do good. However, as I report in my book (Suck It
Up: How carbon capture technology can help solve the climate crisis--
it's just $1.99 on Amazon, Greg!), Warburg Pincus, a big private
equity firm, is seriously considering an investment in Global
Thermostat. One cam safely assume that their investment is financial,
and based on revenues that may be generated in the short to medium
term by using CO2 for EOR or to feed algae. So Ken Caldeira's and Dave
Hawkins' concerns are certainly relevant.

[RWL2: I have just purchased and read your book - and am glad in retrospect to have paid my $1.99. I learned a great deal from your extensive interviewing of the key DAC actors. We have heard in the last few days from some you interviewed, but there are at least ten times as many, likely to have been in Calgary, who I would like to have you interview again.
I was pleased that you had a little on Sir Richard Branson's CDR competition (DAC and a few others). I urge you to write a similar book covering the rest of the CDR field.

What to me is interesting about DAC is that it may help to reframe the
politcal debate about fossil fuels and climate change. It's a reminder
that the climate problem isn't caused by fossil fuels per se, but by
the waste they generate, i.e., CO2. The opens the door to a productive
conversation about why the fossil fuel industry shouldn't be required
to clean up after itself. You can call this extended producer
responsibility or just see it as another example of "All I really need
to know I learned in kindergarten."

[RWL3: As indicated at the top, I agree with all of this. However, to clarify, should use of the CO2 for EOR qualify as cleanup? Would you count recycling into fuels the same as deep sequestration? How would you compare either of those options with other CDR approaches such as Biochar or BECS? And should such other CDR approaches, if cheaper, qualify for meeting the "kindergarten" responsibility principle?

Again thanks for taking such an active reportorial interest in this topic. Ron]

RAU greg

unread,

Mar 27, 2012, 5:51:11 PM3/27/12

to kcal...@gmail.com, John Gorman, rongre...@comcast.net, Geoengineering, Oliver Morton

Ken et al.,

As Ken, I also don't have an objection to Direct Air Capture, and to equating this with centralized industrialized processes. If I have a vat of algae consuming CO2 to form biomass or a tub of calcium hydroxide spontaneously sucking CO2 out of the air to form (bi)carbonates, I have a centralized Direct Air Capture system. However, the thermodynamics and economics of the preceding are very different from those of centralized industrial systems that remove CO2 from air to make concentrated CO2. Nevertheless, the results of high profile studies on the latter have been used to characterize and pass judgement on systems like the former, apparently also including the prospects for any form of active CO2 removal from air, be it centralized or decentralized (see the quotes in my earlier email).

I say it's way too early to write off pro-active air capture for the next 50 years, unless such inaction is supported by studies (of the type Socolow et al. and House et al conducted) that are extended to the other approaches. Let's not make sweeping and negative judgements about air capture until we know what all of the options are and until their capacity, safety, cost, and net environmental benefit have been objectively studied and compared to other strategies. Any discussion of air capture needs to start with acknowledging that over half of anthro CO2 is being mitigated by such processes right now.

As for Ken's fear of successful air capture dissuading emissions reduction and therefore increasing climate risk this century: relative to emissions, natural air capture is reducing climate risk right now. How about trying to safely build on this achievement, just in case sufficient emissions reduction continues to elude us?

Sorry to keep perseverating on this, but I wouldn't do it if I didn't think it was critically important that we not prematurely downplay/write off all air CO2 capture based on very narrowly focussed studies fixated on the idea that conc CO2 be the end product. Let's find out what our true options are and their cost effectiveness - broader thinking and more research needed.

Regards,

Greg

From: Ken Caldeira <kcal...@carnegie.stanford.edu>
To: John Gorman <gor...@waitrose.com>
Cc: rongre...@comcast.net; Geoengineering <Geoengi...@googlegroups.com>; Oliver Morton <omeco...@gmail.com>
Sent: Mon, March 26, 2012 1:04:29 AM

Subject: Re: [geo] Calgary meeting on Direct Air Capture - thoughts?