Hi all, The term "emergency situation" or a state of emergency can get things going that otherwise wouldn't eventuate. Let's imagine for a moment that the world did conclude that we're in an emergency situation. This would have a huge impact on cost projections, in a number of ways.
As to capital cost, DAC may be run by the Department of Energy (DOE) without a need for a return on investment. The fact that CO2 is removed from the atmosphere is the goal, the "return on investment" so to say, and this could be organized through regulation. As an example, Europe plans to add an extra price to international flight from January 1, 2012. So, let's imagine mandatory fees were imposed on airfares, to could bring in $200/t CO2. This could finance DAC with minimal overhead and on a budget-neutral basis. Let's have another look at the costs. Without Return on Investments, and while depreciating the cost of equipment over a longer term, say 25 years, capital costs could be restricted to less than $100/t CO2. Operational costs could also be lower, and be restricted mainly to maintenance, labor and chemicals (in this case, the DOE would fit operations in with existing operations). Using an estimate of 90$/ton CO2 captured would still keep the costs under $290/t captured. As to power requirements, in a state of emergency, the number of wind turbines would increase dramatically. Since wind blows mainly at night, much wind energy is produced at times when there is little or no demand for electricity on the grid. By operating mainly on off-peak hours, DAC could use energy that might otherwise go to waste. If energy for heating for DAC similarly came from renewables, cost associated with power requirements may be minimal. Finally, there's the cost of transport and sequestration. The advantage of DAC is that it can be located at many places, so this latter cost would be relatively low, while it could also be partly avoided by industrial use of CO2, such as production of carbon fiber (e.g. for EVs), use of CO2 in algae bags, etc. But even when sequestered in old mines or other places, total cost of DAC run by the DOE (in a state of emergency) could remain under $200/t CO2 captured, if emergency measures were put in place, which would also avoid costly litigation, rights-of-way issues, etc. On the other hand, coal fired power plants would be worse off in such a state of emergency. It would result in higher prices for emissions, which would not help the case for carbon capture at power plants. Such power plants cause the highest emissions, so the extra cost for the energy they use locally will have to be incorporated in the cost of capture, since the power needed for air capture at power plants would come from the power plant. The cost of power produced at coal-fired power plants currently doesn't take into account the currently-externalized costs of coal, which a recent analysis puts at some $345.3 billion. That would add close to 17.8¢/kWh to the price of electricity produced from coal. By comparison, the average residential price of electricity is 12¢/kWh. In conclusion, DAC would make sense in the world that accepted the need to urgently reduce atmospheric levels of carbon, since there are only a few ways to achieve this. But even if the world doesn't accept (yet) that we're in an emergency situation, it makes sense to be prepared. Technologies such as DAC need time to be developed. In case of emergencies, we may not have enough time for R&D, testing, checking and organizing things. Cheers! Sam Carana On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 8:39 AM, David Keith <ke...@ucalgary.ca> wrote: > David > > > > I agree with your statements about risks. But, I was not drawing a > conclusion about what should be done. > > > > I agree with you that we cannot yet say if it should be should be employed > in non-emergency situations, or for that matter in emergency situations. > > > > I am saying that as you dig into it the distinction between emergency and > non-emergency looks ever less clear. > > > > As a side note I think many of my colleagues like to frame SRM as emergency > response only because it seems less threatening. The thinking is, who could > oppose something in a dire emergency? I think this overemphasis on emergency > hobbles the real debates we face. SRM will quite possibly provide a means to > limit climate damages to significant parts the global population even > without any "emergency", but because it doesn't perfectly compensate for CO2 > driven warming it will be unequal and we will have hard governance > challenges between winners and losers. Just as we do over CO2 itself. > > > > In any case, a good assessment should consider the range of ways in which > SRM might be used without prejudging the outcome. > > > > Yours, > > David > > > > > > > > From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com > [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Hawkins, Dave > Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 4:09 PM > To: David Keith; Alvia Gaskill; soco...@princeton.edu; > rongretlar...@comcast.net > Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com > Subject: RE: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report > > > > Not having attended the Lima meeting, I am likely missing nuances connected > with the question is SRM an “emergency strategy”? Having said that, my two > cents observation would be that it is a bit early to be declaring > definitively that SRM is or is not only an emergency strategy. For me the > answer to that question would turn on how large the risks might be from > massive SRM deployment compared to the risks of a failure to deploy. As we > increase our knowledge of the plausible risks and plausible efficacy of > broad-scale SRM deployment, we may judge that it is “safe enough” and > “powerful enough” as a risk reducer to justify deployment for non-emergency > purposes but I would be surprised if there were a robust basis for those > conclusions today. > > David > > > > From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com > [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of David Keith > Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 5:14 PM > To: Alvia Gaskill; soco...@princeton.edu; rongretlar...@comcast.net > Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com > Subject: RE: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report > > > > Of course it’s not only an emergency strategy. > > > > Each group that has begun to think about it seriously has realized that. > > > > I said just this to the group in Lima an hour ago. > > > > David > > > > From: Alvia Gaskill [mailto:agask...@nc.rr.com] > Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 3:07 PM > To: soco...@princeton.edu; rongretlar...@comcast.net > Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com; David Keith > Subject: Re: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report > > > > "I leave the Lima group with a final thought. Is SRM only an emergency > strategy? What are the pros and cons of a continuous ground-bass deployment > of 1 W/m^2 of stratospheric aerosol negative forcing, as an overall helper > on the margin and as a way of learning about larger deployment?" > > > > No, it shouldn't only be considered as an emergency option, a term which has > never been adequately defined anyway and tends to be used as a defense > against the media and the opponents of geoengineering by those working in > the field who can't or don't want to pardon the expression, "take the > heat." > > > > Paul Crutzen included use of stratospheric aerosols at about this level of > negative forcing to replace the loss of tropospheric sulfate from pollution > controls and others have made similar proposals (including me). To get to > some kind of full-scale offset of AGW forcing (back to pre-industrial from > today or some future date) you have to pass through 1 W/m2 anyway. Plus, a > slowdown of warming now means less ice melted that we can't replace in the > future (given what we know about how difficult that will be). This applies > to cloud brightening as well or some other technology that could achieve the > same impact. But i also note that to get to 1 W/m2 you have to get through > 0.1 and 0.2 and 0.3, etc. You have to start somewhere. > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Robert Socolow > > To: rongretlar...@comcast.net > > Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com ; ke...@ucalgary.ca > > Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 2:57 > > Subject: RE: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report > > > > Ron, Ken, and others: > > > > Given that the Lima meeting is in its middle day today, let me push > everything aside to write answers to Ron’s questions. I am speaking only for > myself. > > > > 1. Yes, there is only one change, aside from formatting, in the June 1 > version of the APS report. We say so on the second page of the preface. As > we were issuing the unformatted version at the end of April, David Keith > identified a clear mistake in our report, involving the pressure drop per > meter for a specific packing material, which we had carried forward from a > 2006 paper. Fortunately, one member of our committee, Marco Mazzotti, was an > author of that paper. With one of his co-authors, he updated his earlier > work with new information from the manufacturer of the packing, additionally > found an error in his earlier analysis, followed a hunch that there was an > easy fix for us by substituting one packing for another, and we buttoned > this up. The new packing is cheaper, but we verified that our initial cost > estimate for packing had been so conservative that the new packing actually > fit the assumed price better. I am aware at this time of no outright error > in our report. People may find some, and if they do I hope they will tell me > about them. > > > > 2. Item a. In my view, the experts (specifically Keith, Lackner, and > Eisenberger) were given adequate time to interact with us. Our project took > two years. We established groundrules at the front end that there would be > an arms-length relationship and (confirmed more than once) that as a matter > of policy we would not learn confidential information. All three presented > to us at our kick-off meeting in March 2009, reviewed a draft (along with > almost 20 others) in April 2010, and communicated repeatedly with us. I had > the personal goal of being sure that the key ideas in their work were > understood by our committee and commented upon in our report. Nonetheless, > none of the three of them is happy with the result. One comment all three > would make is that they would have done the study differently. They would > have asked what air capture could cost if one were to assume success in the > presence of risk; our committee felt that in the absence of reviewable > published data, this was an illegitimate task. We decided to include one > cost estimate based on a benchmark design, resulting in a system whose cost > is probably quite a lot higher than $600/tCO2, and in the process, by > careful attention to methodology, the reader can learn how to think about > costs. Personally, I now appreciate (and the reader will too who works > through the calculation) that the most underestimated cost factor is the > pressure drop as air moves through the contactor, which enters not only as a > an energy cost but also through its impact on “net carbon,” even for largely > decarbonized power. All three experts are working on low-pressure-drop > systems for this reason. > > > > Item b. I know of no comparable study. We call explicitly for some group to > do some comparable analysis of biological air capture: afforestation, > biochar, BECS – maybe one study for each. In that instance it will be > critical to understand what scale-up looks like: small-scale deployment is > cheap and could have major co-benefits. But how much planetary engineering > is entailed if one aims for the reduction of atmospheric CO2 by 1 ppm per > year for a hundred years – negative carbon on a monumental scale? > > > > 3. ASAP means “as soon as possible.” I think one needs to be careful > with such language. If one is in a car, one can slam on the brakes or brake > carefully. Both could be called smallest-possible-distance braking, but the > meaning of “possible” would be different in the two cases, with more > conditionality in the second case. When Pacala and I wrote the wedges paper > in 2004, we identified a societal goal of an emissions rate at mid-century > no higher than today’s; if restated in today’s language, 30 MtCO2/yr in > 2061. That goal is now considered timid by many – it is associated with “3 > degrees,” while the more politically correct “2 degrees” is associated with > 15 MtCO2/yr. My view is that we shouldn’t choose between these two goals > now. We should make that decision in 10 to 20 years, but concentrate now on > getting on a new path. But I think it is also important, and will make the > activist community more credible, if we concede in some prominent way that > the world could overreact to climate change, undervaluing what can go wrong > when “solutions” are deployed, from the destruction of forest ecosystems to > nuclear proliferation. In short, we want to keep conditionality at the front > of our minds, not treat it as an afterthought. > > > > We should be suspicious of distractions, and, to my mind, direct air capture > is one of these. Air capture is a close neighbor of post-combustion capture > at coal and gas power plants, a much cheaper mitigation strategy. This > simple fact about technological neighbors tells is to be very careful always > to state that near the top of the mitigation agenda for several decades is > decarbonizing the global power system. There is something grotesque about > pulling CO2 our of the air at one place while pouring it into the air at > four-hundred times greater concentration at another place. First things > first. > > > > The underlying irresolvable argument is political. Is a radical goal (2 > degrees) that requires instant comprehensive mitigation best suited to spur > action, even when activists widely concede (mostly privately) that the goal > is unachievable and has the potential to lead people to throw caution to the > winds? Or is a liberal goal (3 degrees) -- more suited to deliberative > action, more respectful of the legitimate needs of developing countries, and > more matched to the building of coalitions -- a better choice? Which is more > likely to lead to our getting started and not having our grandchildren > looking at “5 degrees”? > > > > I leave the Lima group with a final thought. Is SRM only an emergency > strategy? What are the pros and cons of a continuous ground-bass deployment > of 1 W/m^2 of stratospheric aerosol negative forcing, as an overall helper > on the margin and as a way of learning about larger deployment? > > > > Rob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com > [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of > rongretlar...@comcast.net > Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 12:03 PM > To: Robert Socolow > Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com; ke...@ucalgary.ca > Subject: Re: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report > > > > Robert and ccs > > 1. Thanks for the added links and information. Not yet mentioned on > this list is that your APS panel changed (added?) only one footnote (#18) - > and as near as I can tell - changed no conclusions. Still projecting > $600/tonCO2, it seems. > > > 2. As you may have noticed there has been some discussion this list on > how we (Society) should be evaluating climate technologies. I do think that > groups such as the APS have done and can do a great public service with > studies of the type you have performed here (but I know too little of the > topic to know if your panel or Keith should be given the higher > believability rating). I thank you for taking on a thankless task. Two > questions for you, based on my concerns (as at what may happen in Lima, for > instance) > > a. Do you feel that the air capture experts were given adequate time > to present to your panel - or might you now do something different > procedurally? > > b. Are you aware of any other similar (highly technical, multiple and > presumably un-biased panelists) technology assessment in the works (by > professional societies or anyone) for any of the other field(s) of > geoengineering? > > > 3 Your proposal with Prof Pacala to use the simplified concept of > seven wedges reaching 1 Gt C each in 50 years time (and 25 Gt C each > avoided) has been very helpful (unfortunately not yet very well followed). > Several questions on that as related to the interests of this list: > > a. Since we all (?) are trying to get into carbon negative territory > ASAP, can you comment on having each wedge grow twice as rapidly so as to > get to zero fossil carbon by 2060. This being even longer than Jim Hansen > desires, of course - so can you endorse an even shorter growth period for > the (roughly seven? or do we need 14 now?) wedges. > > b. Have you given thought as to what a similar carbon negative wedge > split should be on the CDR side? How much BECCS, air capture, ocean > deposition. tree planting, Biochar, etc? Does the wedge concept still work > as well? At what time point in the 50 year history for the "traditional" > Pacala-Socolow wedge growth would you recommend starting the CDR wedges? > Soon? > > c. Is there a way that the SRM technologies fit into a wedge > description? > > > Thanks in advance. Ron > > ________________________________ > > From: "Robert Socolow" <soco...@princeton.edu> > To: rongretlar...@comcast.net, ke...@ucalgary.ca > Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com > Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 8:33:12 PM > Subject: RE: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report > > Ron and others: I attach .pdfs for the report (revised) and the press > release. The links are: > > > > Report: > http://www.aps.org/policy/reports/popa-reports/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&PageID=244407. > > > > Press release: http://www.aps.org/about/pressreleases/dac11.cfm > > > > The links have not been changed. > > > > Rob Socolow > > > > From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com > [mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of > rongretlar...@comcast.net > Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 8:08 PM > To: ke...@ucalgary.ca > Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report > > > > David - Can you provide a link to the revised APS report? (I failed.) > Thanks Ron > > ________________________________ > > From: "David Keith" <ke...@ucalgary.ca> > To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com > Sent: Monday, June 20, 2011 4:38:16 PM > Subject: [geo] Cost of Air Capture and the APS report > > Several recent posts have referred to the American Physical Society’s report > on Air Capture. > > > > We posted a critique of the report and in turn the APS released an updated > version that—using a post-facto kluge—addressed two of the errors that had > identified. > > > > The our comments are posted on www.carbonengineering.com the website of our > Air Capture startup company, the deep link is here: > http://www.carbonengineering.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/CE_APS_DAC_Comments.pdf. > > > > We at Carbon Engineering are self-interested. Of course! But that cuts both > ways. We have a huge incentive do to quality engineering that can be brought > to market and not to waste our time on stuff that does not make sense. > > > > Speaking for myself, I have opportunities to do commercial work on both AC > and on biomass with capture (BECCS). And I have access to high quality > proprietary engineering and economic analysis of both. If I thought that > BECCS was much cheaper than AC then I would not be working on AC. > > > > David > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > 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. > > -- > 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. > > -- > 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. > > -- > 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.
