List, Peter and David:
Nice discussion! I hope we can continue for a bit longer.
1. I recommend the patent site suggested by Peter:
https://patents.justia.com/inventor/peter-eisenberger
<https://patents.justia.com/inventor/peter-eisenberger>. A major portion of
the first of many DAC patents there is at:
https://patents.justia.com/patent/20170321656
<https://patents.justia.com/patent/20170321656>
2. I hope Peter will consider adding biomass (and especially biochar)
to the carbon neutral solar and wind resources critical to his CDR
methodologies. Biochar approaches can supply the electricity needed but also
the needed thermal energy. I guess such a bio approach will be of lower cost.
3. David Keith’s below recommended “Technology Review,” a 15 minute
video, is well done.
I hope there can be some more discussion on these initial observations
a) at 12:40: that CDR is “inherently expensive”. Virtually
all of us on the CDR side of “Geo” disagree - and obviously Peter disagrees.
b) at 13:40: shows an interesting chart with CDR started only
well after (full scale) SRM is underway. I would hope to see a similar one
from David - with CDR started as many years in advance of SRM as shown here
afterwards. The CDR rationale being the same as much of Peter’s discussion -
on cost reductions to be expected via the experience/learning curve. (The
solar experience curve has had a 40-year slope of about 0.8; that for wind of
about 0.9; what is expected for DAC? I have no idea what it might be for
biochar.)
c) I don’t think David, in this video, had any discussion of
ocean acidification - or
d) the impact of sudden termination of a SRM approach
4. David’s final URL link below that starts off “www.ure…..3376….
works when “.ure” is replaced by “.nature”. Unfortunately behind a pay-wall,
but the abstract probably gives the article’s main features. Of key importance
to today’s discussion was the final abstract sentence: “In the extreme, if
solar geoengineering were used to hold radiative forcing constant under RCP8.5,
the carbon burden may be reduced by ∼100 GTC, equivalent to 12–26% of
twenty-first-century emissions at a cost of under US$0.5 per tCO2.” RCP 8.5
seems a questionable scenario and hope we can hear more with lower scenarios.
Ron
> On Nov 24, 2017, at 12:35 PM, Peter Eisenberger <peter.eisenber...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> David ,
> First and foremost not only are we on the same side but I consider you a
> leader generally and specifically in the issue of SRM and CDR issues. No
> one
> has more experience than you in those two technologies. Frankly it is for
> that reason I have been surprised that you shifted your focus to SRM , which
> whether intended or not is a statement itself
> given the leadership position you had in CDR/DAC. It is not just my opinion
> but also of your DAC colleagues that intentional or not you convey ,
> consistent with your email response , that you are pessimistic about the
> potential of low cost DAC. The irony I find in this is that from my
> perspective the impact of that perception on DAC today is what the APS did
> ten years ago to you- making assertions that DAC is costly with no real
> scientific basis . You seem willing to put enormous effort into SRM yet have
> not made the effort to find out for yourself whether my claims are plausible
> or not. In fact to be candid as a physicist I believe you can easily
> determine for your self by reading our published patents why GT represents a
> cost breakthrough in DAC technology. I invite you to visit me at a time of
> your convenience or I believe we can go quite far over the phone. I hope that
> you will not say in the future that you have not seen the evidence but make
> the more accurate statement that you have not yet sought to get the evidence
> with anywhere the same vigor that you have pursued SRM . As I said I do not
> understand why you switched your focus before doing so.
>
> In that regard the most experienced companies in processing gases from the
> air all have looked at our technology and validated its low cost potential.
> In one case they observed us for over five years and operated our plants. The
> person leading that effort for one of the companies quit his job to join
> us . He is scientist of high reputation but also arose to a high management
> level in his company . I believe you know him and I know he would be glad to
> talk with you and tell you as he did others at meeting at ASU and the Virgin
> Earth Prize Judges that GT technology can capture CO2 for under $50 /tonne.
> He looked at all DAC technologies as did all the other companies and all have
> expressed a desire to work with GT.
>
> In addition I think there is a difference between emissions reductions of
> the CCS kind (not replacing fossil with solar ) and CDR even though as you
> say the CO2 math in the short term seems unaffected.
> This is because of the power of learning by doing and that all the costs come
> at the end when ones doubling of capacity involve massive amounts of new
> plants. Thus for fixed dollar allocation if one invests it all in DAC/CDR and
> none in CCS one will get to an ambient co2 concentration sooner and for
> less money than than doing CCS first and then CDR. Some people use the cost
> differential to argue against this but fail to analyze the learning by
> doing positive feedback . But most important at $50 DAC retrofits of CCS
> plants produce more costly CO2 and have high costs to get it to where it can
> be sequestered. The leading gas companies are coming to this same conclusion.
>
>
> I argue that the misconception about the cost of DAC, started by the APS , is
> causing us to make bad strategic choices for how to address the threat of
> climate change -this is not some small academic debate we are having. I
> strongly believe future generations will judge us harshly from us not having
> the discipline to at least base our actions on what is knowable if we made
> the effort to know it. I have told others I wish i was not associated with
> a DAC technology so i would have greater credibility for this important
> issue. I have pledged not to take any public money if the call for a strong
> effort in DAC is responded to . That and trying to reach out to experts like
> you is my attempt to be responsible . My investors have no interest in having
> others know that low cost DAC CO2 is achievable.
>
> David , we are on the same side, I greatly respect your capabilities ,and you
> are playing a very important role in the climate challenge we face. Let us
> find a way to get you what you need so you can add your voice that low cost
> DAC -say under $50 per tonne is feasible. As you know I support research on
> SRM but I am sure you agree with me that if low cost DAC is achievable it
> deserves a high priority of efforts to develop it for large scale deployment
> and we can ill afford any further delay .
>
> With best regards,
> Peter
>
> On Fri, Nov 24, 2017 at 12:09 PM, David Keith <davidkeit...@gmail.com
> <mailto:davidkeit...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Peter
>
> I’m sorry you’re frustrated. I don’t think your interpretation is entirely
> fair.
>
>
>
> It would be ridiculous to claim that solar geoengineering is “necessary”.
>
>
>
> I did not make that claim here and I believe I’ve been consistent on this
> over years in writing and speaking. I don’t believe I said anything to
> contradict that view in this interview. It’s true I did not specifically say
> in this interview that this was not true. But note that this interview this
> was tightly edited and omitted many things I often say about governance and
> about context including mitigation and carbon removal. For a longer unedited
> video that does mention carbon removal see:
> https://www.technologyreview.com/video/609398/the-growing-case-for-geoengineering/
>
> <https://www.technologyreview.com/video/609398/the-growing-case-for-geoengineering/>
>
> I have been clear consistently that solar geoengineering has substantial
> risks, that it is, at best, a partial supplement to emissions reductions.
>
> Here’s how I see the trade-off between emissions reductions, carbon removal,
> and solar geoengineering.
>
>
>
> Emissions reductions are necessary if we want a stable climate. If we try to
> continue emissions and offset them with increasing solar geoengineering the
> world will walk further and further away from the current climate with higher
> and higher risks. One could, in principle get a stable climate, by continuing
> emissions and offsetting them with carbon removal. But I fail to see why it
> would make economic or environmental sense to have massive carbon removal
> (with its attendant costs and environmental impacts) while we still have
> massive emissions. If there is truly a low impact way to do carbon removal
> that is significantly cheaper than emissions reductions, then I would change
> my view on this. (Yes, I know you believe you can do carbon removal at some
> low number like 30 or $50 a ton. I truly hope you’re correct. I simply
> haven’t seen the evidence yet.)
>
>
>
> While emissions are high I don’t believe there is a meaningful distinction
> between emissions mitigation and carbon removal. The climate can’t tell the
> difference between a ton not emitted in a ton emitted and recaptured. So,
> while emissions are high, I think we should only put significant effort into
> large-scale deployment of carbon removal if it is cheaper than other methods
> of reducing emissions, or if it has lower environmental impacts and roughly
> the same cost.
>
>
>
> Once emissions get down towards zero carbon removal provides a unique ability
> to reduce concentrations. Once emissions get to zero carbon removal can do
> something that can’t be done by emissions mitigation or solar geoengineering.
> That’s part of the reason I’m very proud to have worked on carbon removal
> from my early work on BECCS (early papers, first PhD of the topic) to my work
> at Carbon Engineering). I would therefore like to see serious effort to
> developing carbon removal even if it is not now cheaper or otherwise better
> than emissions reduction. And serious development will entail limited
> deployment. It makes sense to do this during the time emissions are high to
> buy the option for net negative emissions once emissions get towards zero.
>
>
>
> Finally, solar geoengineering may provide a way to substantially reduce
> climate risks during a carbon concentration peak. A peak defined by continued
> positive emissions on the front and by carbon removal on the far side.
>
>
>
> Finally, note that, contrary to your assertion, solar geoengineering does in
> fact provide some significant reduction in carbon concentrations
> <http://ure.com/articles/nclimate3376.epdf?author_access_token=LJ7xrnEo6oZoRNRYgu7btNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0NZqUjovChb9EdabCEcR6GuvZkepQXaPwfxVdn3_EQ1onk9bPWOsX7ETCUW7OvjKbM7syCkanNFs4sG07XAXjcx>.
>
>
>
> Peter, I think were roughly on the same side.
>
> I think the work you’re doing is terrific.
>
>
>
> Yours,
> David
>
>
>
> N.B., I am not subscribed to this list so please email me or post on twitter
> if you want to continue the conversation.
>
>
>
>
> On Sunday, 19 November 2017 11:34:14 UTC-5, Peter Eisenberger wrote:
> David Keith was on TV and did what I have expressed concern about generally
> about the advocacy for SRM
> He accepted the framework that we will fail to address the carbon emissions
> reduction targets , failed to mention the CDR
> option he himself helped pioneer and then pushed off concerns expressed about
> doing SRM by saying doing nothing
> also has risks ( not even mentioning that acidification of the ocean will
> continue for sure and the continuing buildup of co2 etc ) . But most
> importantly he supported the choice as being between doing nothing or doing
> SRM which as a previous comment pointed out will be embraced by those who
> want to do nothing that doing this will enable us to avoid the adverse
> impacts of climate change and thus is acceptable as a response to climate
> change threat
>
> My general point has been and continues to be that if us scientists allow our
> advocacy for a particular approach to determine what we say and not
> discipline ourselves with
> a overall coherent approach we will become (are) part of the problem and not
> part of the solution
>
> (Now I know that media can distort messages but I also know that it is
> possible upfront to tell them the distortions one will not accept )
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> --
> 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
> <mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering
> <https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering>.
>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
> <https://groups.google.com/d/optout>.
>
>
>
> --
> CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: This email message and all attachments contain
> confidential and privileged information that are for the sole use of the
> intended recipients, which if appropriate applies under the terms of the
> non-disclosure agreement between the parties.
>
> --
> 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
> <mailto:geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> <mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering
> <https://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering>.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout
> <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.
