In the article Ken attached, the text offers the view on CDR (which included BECCS) that "None of these currently can be deployed quickly on a large scale.". Funding is the only limiting factor for many of the CDR methods. And, this view of CDR being a non-starter on the scale side of the equation is simply not supportable. Specifically concerning the Marine BECCS concept, expansion should be supported on a robust scale simply for the biofuel and non-fuel commodities (with CDR and oceanic pH adjustment as convenient by-products).
In simple words, BECCS has the ability to address the foundational problem of FF use and Marine BECCS avoids the bulk of the limiting issues found in terrestrial BECCS. The SRM side of the GE debate is completely unable to contribute at even the environmental remedial level much less being able to address the core problem of FF use. Also, Marine BECCS needs no further development of the international governance issue for all nations to be able to use the method to help meet their needs for basic food/feed/fuel/fertilizer/freshwater/polymers etc. Best, Michael On Thursday, May 22, 2014 9:10:29 PM UTC-7, kcaldeira wrote: > > http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2014EO200003/pdf > > see attachment > > > On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Rau, Greg <ra...@llnl.gov > <javascript:>>wrote: > >> >> >> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/2014EO200003/asset/eost2014EO200003.pdf?v=1&t=hvip8ico&s=b0ec7713c061bf0df5261c8049de962020c6d8b1 >> >> Selected quotes: >> >> "If it’s enough of an emergency to deploy the solar geoengineering >> system, it’s enough of an emergency to stop deploying devices—power plants, >> automobiles—that make the problem worse.” >> >> >> "“We should wait until we see that the emissions are stabilized in the >> atmosphere” before we think about advancing emergency button scenarios such >> as SRM..." >> >> >> Accelerating melting of the the globe's major ice sheets isn't an >> planetary emergency right now? >> >> >> “If you take an assessment of the current state of knowledge for all of >> the proposed techniques to remove CO2 from the atmosphere—at least the ones >> that I am aware of—you have to account for very long time scales, generally >> in decades,” before you would have a significant impact from these >> techniques, he said. “We can’t count on proposed CO2 removal measures to >> notably supplement mitigation measures anytime in the near future.” >> >> >> Hmmmm... 55% of our current CO2 emissions don't stay in the atmosphere >> due to natural CDR. I'd say that's beating the heck out any emissions >> reduction we've achieved. Unthinkable that we can't up this percentage >> some, in the near term, just in case that emissions reduction thing doesn't >> get the job done? >> >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "geoengineering" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com<javascript:> >> . >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
