Hi Olaf, Could you start by saving the Great Barrier Reef? Something needs to be done quickly and locally.
Cheers, John On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 9:00 AM, Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf) <r.d.schuil...@uu.nl> wrote: > > > > > *From:* Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf) > *Sent:* woensdag 1 juni 2016 9:41 > *To:* 'andrew.lock...@gmail.com' > *Subject:* RE: [geo] 6 key lessons to inform negative emissions > technology innovation > > > > Why is everybody always insisting on new ”technologies”. The natural > process of weathering can be upgraded easily and in a cost –effective way > to provide the best solution to capture in a safe and sustainable way the > required amounts of CO2. R.D.Schuiling > > > > *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [ > mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>] *On > Behalf Of *Andrew Lockley > *Sent:* dinsdag 31 mei 2016 17:19 > *To:* geoengineering > *Subject:* [geo] 6 key lessons to inform negative emissions technology > innovation > > > > > > http://www.centerforcarbonremoval.org/blog-posts/2016/5/28/greg-nemet-6-lessons-for-net-innovation?utm_content=buffer272be&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer > > May 31, 2016 > > Guest Post: Gregory Nemet shares 6 key lessons to inform negative > emissions technology innovation > > Noah Deich > > General CDR, Policy,Technology / Innovation > > Gregory Nemet, an Associate Professor at the University of > Wisconsin–Madison in the La Follette School of Public Affairs and the > Nelson Institute's Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment, > writes in this post about how the history of other technological > innovations can inform our expectations and policy around the development > and deployment of carbon removal solutions. > > Meeting the ambitious climate change targets agreed upon in Paris last > December will require deep transformation of the global economy—especially > in energy systems, transportation systems, and industry—over the next > several decades. It is becoming increasingly clear that such a transition > will almost certainly require substantial deployment of negative emissions > technologies (NETs) during the course of the 21st century. > > “It is becoming increasingly clear that such a transition will almost > certainly require substantial deployment of negative emissions technologies > (NETs) during the course of the 21st century. > > One way to look at this challenge is through the lens of integrated > assessment models (IAMs), which are optimization models that minimize the > costs of reaching climate targets over the long term. Even though they > have so far included only a subset of potential NETs, these models deploy 5 > to 20 gigatonnes (GT = 1 billion tonnes) of CO2 removal per year (global > CO2 emissions are around 40GT per year today) in scenarios that correspond > to the Paris targets (e.g. limiting warming to +2C degrees). Deployment of > NETs will surely increase as these models start to develop ways to achieve > +1.5C degree targets, as the IPCC has been asked to report on. > > Integrated assessment modeling from the Global Carbon Project shows > negative emissions prevalent across climate scenarios. > > A less black box way to understand the challenge is through carbon > budgeting. Meeting those targets allows the world to emit about 1000 more > gigatons of CO2—at current rates we’d reach that limit around 2040 and we’d > have to be at zero from then on. The budget for +1.5C degrees, which also > was included in a more aspirational way in the Paris Agreement, would mean > getting to zero in the 2020s if emissions were to stay constant until > then. More realistic scenarios include a peak reasonably soon and then > smooth decarbonization thereafter. But the math of +2C degrees, means that > peak has to occur very soon and the decarbonization must be rapid, not > gradual. > > If we want a more gradual transition, we need to start thinking about a > warmer world than +2C or think seriously about negative emissions. Many > possible ways have been proposed to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. I > found at least six in which peer reviewed journal articles have included > estimates of potentials of at least 1 gigawatt of CO2 removal per year. > Some have potentials of 10 GT/year or more. > > BECCS: bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, DAC: direct air capture, > EW: enhanced weatherization, AR: afforestation and reforestation > > It would be a mistake to interpret this comparison as saying that our > capacity for removal exceeds our need. These are simply estimates. There > may be negative interactions among them so that they do not sum. Each has > potentially serious questions including: competition with food, permanence > of storage, energy consumption, cost, public acceptance, and > verifiability. All of these issues merit serious consideration and may > limit realistic potentials. What is a valid insight from this comparison > is that a diverse set of possibilities exists. While it is far too soon to > concentrate on any of them, it is also too early to write off any of these > methods based on their challenges. > > “While it is far too soon to concentrate on any of them, it is also too > early to write off any of these methods based on their challenges. > > To turn these possibilities into options—that is technologies that we can > deploy if we need them—we need a set of policies to accelerate innovation > in them so that they become scalable real world technologies. I’d suggest > that designing such policies should start with what we know about > historical case studies of analogous innovations and government efforts to > encourage them. Here are a few to begin: > > 1. Historical case studies show that successful innovations are those > thatcombine technological opportunity with a market opportunity. Market > experience is crucial; it informs new research and incremental improvements > via learning by doing and economies of scale. > > 2. Research and Development (R&D) is needed, but to make these > technologies real, look to early deployment, not scientific breakthroughs. > R&D can enable scale up and address challenges, such as in materials, > reactions, and storage. But NETs are not a challenge like the Manhattan- > or Apollo Projects, even if it shares the urgency of ending a war or > landing on the moon. The challenge of developing NETs is more like rural > electrification, the interstate highway system, and the green revolution. > These involved variation, gradual scale up, integration with a larger > technological system, and serving diverse end-users. > > 3. Scale up is central to the challenge and is not trivial. Both making > larger units and deploying many units take time and continuous improvements > that learn from previous efforts. There are plenty of examples of failure > due to scaling up too big, too fast. Iteration and gradual scale up would > replicate successful strategies in analogous technologies. > > The Kemper CCS Project shows the risks of trying to scale too big too fast. > > 4. Expect dynamic costs and non-linear deployment. Learning by doing and > economies of scale bring down costs. Deployment is likely to follow > an S-curve; slow at first due to technical problems and risk averse > adopters; and rapid once scale reached, dominant designs achieved, and > reliability proven. Like many other technologies, expect adoption to be > slower than expected in near term and faster than expected in the medium > term. > > Successful innovation requires rapid iteration at small scales in both R&D > and deployment. ViaGreentech Media and Bloomberg New Energy Finance > > 5. Demand for NETs needs to be robust. For those who invest in innovation > in NETs, where do expected payoffs come from? What if the credibility of > policies is weak? The long time scales involved suggest a boom and bust > cycle of interest in addressing climate change, rather than a smooth > monotonic increase in action. Serving niche markets, creating co-products, > and hedging across political jurisdictions are ways to make demand for NETs > robust to policy volatility. > > 6. Public acceptance will be crucial for all NETs. In simple terms, we > know that public perceptions are favorable when there is familiarity, > involvement in decision making process, and when scales involved are human > rather than industrial. Perceptions are unfavorable when deployment is > rapid and adverse outcomes are experienced nearby. If publics are > skeptical, interim failures can become high profile and create > insurmountable setbacks > > “To turn these possibilities into options—that is technologies that we can > deploy if we need them—we need a set of policies to accelerate innovation > in them so that they become scalable real world technologies > > A technology strategy for NETs in the near term should focus on initial > deployment and iteration. It should target learning, intelligent failures, > and improvement. The quantity of CO2 stored, efficiency, and cost are > secondary; they are progress indicators, not program objectives. Later is > the time for de-risking the technology and targeting cost reductions. Look > for places where many small units are deployed in real world conditions, > rather than a few large installations…even if some units must be large > eventually. > > NETs are only viable as a defense against rapid climatic changes if many > units are deployed at small scale before they are needed. Without this > experience, rapid scale up from lab scale to address an emergency are > likely to generate: large technical failures, public opposition, and > lock-in to problematic designs. NETs only have “option value” once they > have been deployed at a small but substantial level. In short, an > innovation strategy for NETs that learns from the past would include: > > BuildFailRecordImproveRepeat…many times, with a diverse set of approaches, > at incrementally larger scale, and in increasingly realistic conditions. > > Gregory Nemet is an Associate Professor at the University of > Wisconsin–Madison in the La Follette School of Public Affairs and the > Nelson Institute's Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment. He > is also chair of the Energy Analysis and Policy certificate program > > His research and teaching focus on improving analysis of the global energy > system and, more generally, on understanding how to expand access to energy > services while reducing environmental impacts. He teaches courses in energy > systems analysis, governance of global energy problems, and international > environmental policy > > -- > 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 https://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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
