Greg, Ken etal 1. Thanks for the cite on the bill. It was not yet up when I checked over the weekend.
2. I wonder if you believe that any form of biomass collection could fit under the bill's stated intent to work with "direct" collection technologies.. I think it a stretch - based on later references to EOR and geothermal. 3. I have to believe also that working with concentrated CO2 sources would also be ruled out in later legal determinations - given the emphasis on "dilute" and the stated 17% is several orders of magnitude from atmospheric.levels of .04% (what it will be before any prizes are available) 4. I think the proposed Section 6 Advisory Board could have some other duties than the few identified. Recommending budget levels and other incentives comes to mind. 5. I am concerned about the emphasis on US retention of patents. We have a world-wide problem here. 6. Like Ken, I still think it better to have a broader scope for this important CDR topic. I do not object to separating CDR and SRM - which are apples and oranges. Ron (Disclosure - I was a AAAS Congressional Fellow [in that program's first year]. I love this sort of discussion. If we want additional Congressional activity in this area [and I do], we are better off with a wide umbrella.) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Greg Rau" <r...@llnl.gov> To: "kcaldeira-gmail" <kcalde...@gmail.com>, "geoengineering" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2011 11:13:57 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Re: calling all CDRers Re: [geo] Re: calling all CDRers The actual bill is here: http://barrasso.senate.gov/public/_files/S_757.pdf My reading is that the performance requirements are to be specified (by the DOE Secretary). I don’t think there are any specifications (yet) on what flavors of CDR might qualify, so head-to-head competition between dilute CO2 ---> inorg/org C vs dilute CO2---> conc CO2 could be a distinct possibility, assuming the bill goes anywhere. On 4/9/11 3:27 PM, "kcaldeira-carnegie.stanford.edu" < kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu > wrote: Agree that it would be much better if politicians would define the problem and allow engineers to find good solutions. Having politicians pick the technological winners is a sure path to disaster. --- Incidentally, I was going to illustrate this point with a famous quote from Van Buren about canals and trains, but this quote is apparently false !! see: http://www.snopes.com/language/document/vanburen.asp --- On a similar note, DOE has largely abandon its hydrogen car effort. Who remembers FreedomCar? http://www.hydrogen.energy.gov/freedomcar_partnership.html Do they learn and decide to define the research by the problem it is supposed to solve (e.g., affordable carbon-neutral personal transport)? No, now we have the next technology pick in the transportation sector: http://www.energy.gov/news/documents/1_Million_Electric_Vehicle_Report_Final.pdf On Sat, Apr 9, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Ron Larson < rongretlar...@comcast.net > wrote: Alvia, Joshua, etal: I do no know whether the bill will go anywhere. But I think it would have a lot more support if it was all-inclusive. That is, support for all forms of CDR. This is like calling for support of vertical-axis wind machines or CdTe photovoltaics. Picking winners is not what Congress is good at. I can partially understand leaving Biochar out - as that word is still less than 4 years old. But anyone wishing to see CDR pushed would find plenty of Biochar activists (lots of farmers and foresters) with a (probably) small modification of the S. 757 language. Ron Sent from my iPad On Apr 9, 2011, at 2:48 PM, "Alvia Gaskill" < agask...@nc.rr.com > wrote: > It's not part of a combined air/source capture strategy. These are both > considered separately and the emphasis is on ambient air and lower > concentration sources like oil refineries and not mentioned, but applicable, > natural gas where the flue gas level is usually around 3% vs. 10 for CO2. > Since this bill has been around for at least 4 years, it doesn't seem likely > to get anywhere, especially in the next few months. > > http://www.eenews.net/public/eenewspm/2009/11/12/2?page_type=print > > CLIMATE: Barrasso, Bingaman float legislation to promote CO2 capture (E&ENews > PM, 11/12/2009) > Katie Howell, E&E reporter > A key Senate Democrat and a leading Republican critic of cap-and-trade > legislation today introduced a new bill that would award monetary prizes to > researchers who figure out a way to suck carbon dioxide directly from the > air. > > Energy and Natural Resources Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Sen. John > Barrasso (R-Wyo.) last week introduced the bill, S. 2744, which would > encourage development of technology to capture CO2 from the atmosphere and > permanently sequester it. Sen. Michael Enzi (R-Wyo.) is a co-sponsor of the > legislation. > > "Our proposal takes a fresh look at climate change," Barrasso said in a > statement. "We want to remove carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere." > > Scientists and engineers are currently scaling up methods to capture CO2 from > industrial sources, like coal-fired power plants. The bill would promote > development of additional technologies to scrub the gases from the air or > from sources, like oil refineries, that have lower concentrations of the > greenhouse gas than power plants and factories. > > "If we could capture carbon dioxide emitted by low-concentration sources, or > even the atmosphere, it would be a major step toward a cleaner energy > future," Bingaman said. "A federal prize to inspire inventive solutions to > this technical challenge could help us get there quicker." > > The bill would establish a federal commission within the Energy Department to > award prizes to scientists and researchers making headway in the field. The > nine commission members, who would be appointed by the president, would be > climate scientists, physicists, chemists, engineers, business managers and > economists. > > Prizes would be awarded to innovators who design technology to mop up CO2 and > permanently store it. The bill does not establish the amount of the awards. > > The bill would allow the United States to share intellectual property rights > with the inventor after the technology is developed. > > "The bill taps into American ingenuity and innovation," Barrasso said. "It > recognizes the need to develop the technological solutions needed to address > climate change. With financial awards, we can encourage the extraordinary > breakthroughs needed to tackle this problem." > > Some researchers are already investigating the problem. Scientists and > engineers from organizations like chemicals giant BASF, glass and ceramics > maker Corning, Columbia University and the University of Calgary in Canada > are all investigating new technologies that would capture CO2 from the air. > > Their ideas are varied and at different stages of development. But most > involve using some sort of material to react with CO2 in the atmosphere and > form a stable solution or mineral. > > Other efforts to award monetary prizes for technology development have also > emerged. Airline entrepreneur Richard Branson and former U.S. Vice President > Al Gore launched the Virgin Earth Challenge in 2007 to offer $25 million to > the first demonstrated design to remove 1 billion metric tons of greenhouse > gases per year from the atmosphere (Greenwire, Feb. 9, 2007). No one has yet > claimed that prize. > > Barrasso introduced similar legislation last session. That bill, S. 2614, > stalled in the Environment and Public Works Committee. > > The new bill has been referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural > Resources, which Bingaman chairs, and an aide said it could move as part of > larger energy and climate legislation in the Senate. > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Josh Horton" < joshuahorton...@gmail.com > > > To: "geoengineering" < geoengineering@googlegroups.com > > Sent: Saturday, April 09, 2011 3:16 > Subject: [geo] Re: calling all CDRers > > > This report gives the impression that the bill is narrowly focused on > conventional point-source post-combustion CCS, but note its title: "A > bill to provide incentives to encourage the development and > implementation of technology to capture carbon dioxide from dilute > sources on a significant scale using direct air capture > technologies." The bill appears to be directed at ambient-air CDR > combined with CCS, which is more encouraging from the standpoint of > climate engineering. Of course, there is tremendous distance from a > bill to a law to implementation to success, so more than a fair amount > of skepticism is in order. > > Josh Horton > joshuahorton...@gmail.com > http://geoengineeringpolitics.blogspot.com/ > > > > On Apr 8, 3:16 pm, "Rau, Greg" < r...@llnl.gov > wrote: >> CLIMATE: Barrasso, Bingaman reintroduce CCS prize bill (04/08/2011) >> Katie Howell, E&E reporter >> Sens. John Barrasso and Jeff Bingaman yesterday reintroduced their >> bipartisan measure that would award monetary prizes to researchers who >> figure out a way to suck carbon dioxide directly from the air. >> >> Barrasso, a Republican from Wyoming, and Bingaman, the New Mexico Democrat >> who chairs the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, first >> introduced the carbon capture and storage (CCS) legislation last Congress, >> where it stalled in committee. >> >> But Bingaman in recent weeks has targeted CCS as an area with potential for >> bipartisan cooperation on the committee. Several Republicans, including >> Barrasso, are co-sponsors of CCS legislation he floated last week (E&ENews >> PM, April 1). >> >> And yesterday, Bob Simon, the committee's Democratic chief of staff, said, >> "the whole area of carbon capture and storage is one that is ripe for >> bipartisan cooperation in the Senate." >> >> "Frankly, if we can make sure, if we can demonstrate that you can >> economically capture and store carbon dioxide, you dramatically increase the >> range of technologies you can call clean energy technologies," Simon said >> yesterday at an event in Washington, D.C. >> >> Barrasso and Bingaman's latest bill (S. 757), which is also co-sponsored by >> Wyoming Republican Sen. Mike Enzi, would encourage development of technology >> to capture CO2 from the atmosphere and permanently sequester it by >> establishing a federal commission within the Energy Department to award >> prizes to scientists and researchers making headway in the field. The >> commission members, who would be appointed by the president, would be >> climate scientists, physicists, chemists, engineers, business managers and >> economists. >> >> Prizes would be awarded to innovators who design technology to mop up CO2 >> and permanently store it. >> >> "This bill taps into American ingenuity and innovation," Barrasso said in a >> statement. "This will increase America's energy security by ensuring the >> long-term viability of coal and other sources of traditional energy. Our >> bill provides the technology to eliminate excess carbon in the atmosphere >> without eliminating jobs in our communities." >> >> But despite Bingaman's optimism about moving CCS legislation this Congress, >> he said earlier this week that no decisions had been made about when the >> committee would take up the CCS measures. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com . > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com < > mailto: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 geoengineering@googlegroups.com . > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com < > mailto: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 geoengineering@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com < mailto: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 geoengineering@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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@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.
