Of course, this is just nomenclature so there is no "right" answer.
Capture from power plants is commonly referred to by "carbon capture and storage" which I think should really be "carbon capture and disposal" since the attempt is to dispose of the carbon (storage generally implies intent to retrieve at a later date, which is not the case with most proposed carbon capture and disposal ). Both air capture and power plant capture with subsequent disposal could be considered two varieties of the same thing: Maybe for short it could be: point-source [or power-plant] carbon capture and disposal (PCCD) air carbon caption and disposal (ACCD) [ I have largely given up on getting the world to use the more descriptive "disposal" rather than the spinmeister's inaccurate use of "storage". We had this debate during the writing of the 2005 IPCC special report. It was clear to all rational people that "disposal" was more accurate, but that "storage" was better for selling the idea. In this case, the majority of IPCC authors, who were supposed to take a neutral stance, clearly let their prescriptive instincts take over and used language that would help them sell the idea. ] ___________________________________________________ Ken Caldeira Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA kcalde...@ciw.edu; kcalde...@stanford.edu http://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968 On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Ning Zeng <z...@atmos.umd.edu> wrote: > Hi Ken and all: > > I have a comment on the terminology 'carbon removal'. By using only > 'removal' it can miss the other important half of the story: (semi- > permanent) storage of removed CO2. Experience in many carbon offset, > biofuel and other ideas have shown that FULL carbon accounting is > essential for an ultimately successful strategy. > > I slightly favor 'carbon sequestration' because the term > 'sequestration' by definition implies 'remove and put away'. However, > I understand that 'carbon sequestration' has been often misused, e.g., > some people simply call carbon assimilated by plants as > 'sequestration' without thinking of the CO2 release as plants decay. > Not sure how much it would take to restore the original meaning of the > term. > > Alternatively, one could use 'carbon removal and storage' (CRS; did > somebody use this already?) to be explicit, but one can not assume > somebody else will take care of storing CO2 which is technologically > and cost-wise uncertain if we are talking about a scale of several > gigatonne carbon a year. > > Best Regards! > -Ning Zeng > > On Nov 24, 1:24 pm, Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu> > wrote: > > Folks, > > > > I think we are coming to a point where there is near-consensus that we > need > > research into climate intervention. > > > > However, I think there are very real differences over the scale, scope, > > emphasis, and structure of a proposed research program (or programs). > > > > Furthermore, there has been almost no discussion on the criteria by which > > program areas,or proposed activities within those program areas, would be > > prioritized. > > > > I would like to open this discussion: > > > > ============ > > > > With regard to structure, I would suggest that there are several > independent > > or quasi-independent research programs: > > > > A. Approaches to remove carbon dioxide (and perhaps other radiatively > active > > gases) from the atmosphere (i.e., Carbon Dioxide Removal methods) > > > > A.1. Approaches that involve biological organisms to remove greenhouse > gases > > from the atmosphere > > > > A.2. Approaches that use chemical engineering methods to remove > greenhouse > > gases from the atmosphere > > > > B. Approaches to directly intervene in Earth's energy flows or storage > that > > do not work primarily through changing greenhouse gas concentrations > (i.e., > > Solar Radiation Management methods) > > > > ------------ > > > > Program segments A and B are organized around tools that can be used to > > address problems. One could imagine another program element that is > > organized around assessing potential threats and possible responses: > > > > C. Threat and response assessment > > > > C.1. Ice sheet stability > > > > C.2. Permafrost methane degassing > > > > C.3. Changes in weather patterns that might disrupt agricultural > > productivity > > > > C.4. etc > > > > ------------ > > > > I see little reason to link A, B, and C closely together and think they > > should be independent (or largely independent) programs. It is not clear > > that A.1 needs to be closely linked to A.2. > > > > =============== > > > > Regarding criteria for funding proposals or program elements within A, B, > > and C, some initial comments: > > > > I think the criteria for funding under program element A (carbon dioxide > > removal and related approaches) should center on scalability, cost, and > > environmental consequences. > > > > I think the criteria for funding under program element B (solar radiation > > management and related approaches) should center on scalability, rapidity > of > > possible deployment, affordability, and environmental consequences. > > > > I distinguish *cost *from *affordability *in that program elements A > will, > > at least in the near term, compete with emissions avoidance, thus > marginal > > cost is critical. However, program elements B might be used in an > emergency > > situation where cost is secondary and, if it works, people might be in a > bad > > enough situation that they might be willing to spend a large fraction of > GDP > > on deployment. > > > > ============== > > > > Does anybody else want to weigh in on scale, scope, emphasis, and > structure > > of climate intervention research programs (or program)? > > > > ============== > > > > Best, > > > > Ken > > > > ___________________________________________________ > > Ken Caldeira > > > > Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology > > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > > > > kcalde...@ciw.edu; kcalde...@stanford.eduhttp:// > dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab > > +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968 > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<geoengineering%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://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 geoengineer...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
