Steve With all due respect one needs to seperate out the process and impact of learning by doing on costs for things we end up doing and the many things that kill new ideas before we try to do them at large scale. My main point is that we need to come together as a community concerned about a real solution and decide what are the core technologies one needs to address the challenges we face and then do them ,being confident when we do them we will drive their costs way down .
My contention is that solar energy and controlling the carbon cycle by DAC are two such core capabilities and we should all agree to support doing them knowing that the costs will come way down . I personally estimated over 30 years ago on the basis of the cost of materials ( the learning curve limit for large scale units where the nth plus 1 unit manufacturing costs approach the material costs ) that the learning curve limit for concentrated solar thermal was 1cts per kwhr . Now Shell agrees with that assessment. I can do the same for DAC and come to $10 per tonne . So I do beleive the only barrier we have for both those core capabilities is the decision to do them -commit the human and financial resources . All this wringing of hands that DAC will be too costly is completely misquided . As the new US academy study will assert $10 per tonne DAC is feasible. We should all come together and do it . Of course we need to do other things but they in turn will become easier as the new lower cost core capabilities are achieved. With best regards, Peter On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 2:18 AM, Steve Rayner <steve.ray...@insis.ox.ac.uk> wrote: > Gents > > > > Permit me a precautionary note. The Royal Society Report noted, > subsequently confirmed by the Climate Geoengineering Governance Project, > that all of the cost estimates for geoengineering technologies were > overdetermined by the input assumptions ( http://www.geoengineering- > governance-research.org/perch/resources/workingpaper13mackerroncostsan > deconomicsofgeoengineering.pdf ). CGG also noted that project costs are > almost invariably subject to the phenomenon of “appraisal optimism”. > Furthermore, historical generalisations, S-curves, etc. are based on > innovations that made it and are simply patterns. There is no inevitability > that any technology will follow such a path, indeed, most patents are death > certificates. > > > > I’m not trying to be pessimistic, just urging a little caution. > > > > Best > > > > Steve Rayner > > James Martin Professor of Science & Civilisation > > Institute for Science, Innovation & Society > > Professorial Fellow, Keble College > > University of Oxford > > 64 Banbury Road > <https://maps.google.com/?q=64+Banbury+Road+%0D%0A+Oxford,+OX2+6PN&entry=gmail&source=g> > > Oxford, OX2 6PN > <https://maps.google.com/?q=64+Banbury+Road+%0D%0A+Oxford,+OX2+6PN&entry=gmail&source=g> > > T: +44 (0)1865 288938 > > E: steve.ray...@insis.ox.ac.uk > > > > > > > > *From: *<geoengineering@googlegroups.com> on behalf of Peter Eisenberger < > peter.eisenber...@gmail.com> > *Reply-To: *"peter.eisenber...@gmail.com" <peter.eisenber...@gmail.com> > *Date: *Monday, 6 August 2018 at 10:00 > *To: *Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> > *Cc: *Mike MacCracken <mmacc...@comcast.net>, geoengineering < > geoengineering@googlegroups.com>, Carbon Dioxide Removal < > carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com> > *Subject: *Re: [CDR] Re: [geo] Stopping the Flood: Could We Use Targeted > Geoengineering to Mitigate Sea Level Rise? > > > > previous left early > > > > On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 1:54 AM, Peter Eisenberger < > peter.eisenber...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I agree completely and more generally wehave now witnessed many examples > of new emergent technolgies reaching scale by following the recipe > described > > by Andcrew that we should be able to count on it ,consider it a part of > the human innovation process with leerning by doing the usual driver. > However as Andrew indicates > > when in a transition in the industrial ecology (eg sources of energy new > processses like DAC and new manufacturing capability , robotics one has a > second driver - the benefit > > of other advances . So as Andrew suggesred DAC will benefit greatly from > reduced energy costs . If Shells prediction of 1 cts per kmhr solar were to > be realized the cost of DAC will be under > > $25 per tonne instead of under $50 per tonne and if robotic manufacting nt > to say installation becomes lower cost it is possible that $10 per tonne > DAC can be achieved. > > This is in fact no more remarkable than 1 cts per kwhr solar > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 6, 2018 at 12:33 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Like any successful emergent technology, DAC will probably scale through > high-cost edge-case uses. Initially, nobody tried to make mobile phones > affordable for African cattle farmers, they tried to make them affordable > for rich Western businessmen. > > > > You don't need high volumes initially, to start seeing major costs > reductions. The learning curve is usually dependent on volume doubling - so > rapid proportional growth from a low base is sufficient. > > > > It's often forgotten that DAC costs are hugely dependent on energy costs. > These will fall rapidly, as both solar and batteries have their own > experience curve effects. > > > > Andrew > > > > PS if anyone has decent cost estimates for mid century solar, let me know. > Module costs are falling reliably, but it's hard to project the impact on > industrial or domestic electricity costs, as solar modules are only one > part of the costs structure. > > > > On Mon, 6 Aug 2018, 02:31 Michael MacCracken, <mmacc...@comcast.net> > wrote: > > In that we are already in an overshoot situation given the objective of > the UNFCCC and we want to be in overshoot the least amount of time possible > given the acceleration of loss of ice sheet mass and increase in extreme > weather and precipitation, I would hope all would also agree that it is > essential to be working toward early, gradual deployment of climate > intervention approaches to push warming back down toward less than 0.5 C > as soon as possible, with DAC, in addition to aggressive mitigation, being > a vital component of an envisioned exit strategy to be scaled up as quickly > as practicable. > > "The fact is that all that is needed is the decision to do it....I [too] > would hope all the very talented and positively motivated geoengineering > community will throw their support behind a strong global effort .." > > Peter E--In my view, there is also the need to avoid very serious impacts > that are building now, so very early forcing down of the temperature as > well as dealing with the higher CO2 concentration over the time it will > take to build up and do this in the manner that you focus on. > > Mike > > > > > > On 8/5/18 4:30 PM, Peter Eisenberger wrote: > > I can tell you that there is a major change going on with reapect to > negative emissions and DAC in particular,. After years of neglect all the > major players > > are showing alot of interest in negative emissions and DAC in particular. > This spans the large petro chemical companies , the goovernments and > international efforts - I do not have the time to document this for you so > > you can ignore the input but neverthe less it is happening and the change > is dramatic. I think as the world takes NETs more seriously a quesion will > emerge for the SRM supporters. Again for the record I support research on > SRM but > > oppose using the possible failure of NETS as the basis for the effort. The > fact is that all that is needed is the decsion to do it, do NET with DAC > playing a big role. I am optimisitic that the academy study that is coming > out will > > provide an additional strong impetus for getting together and doing NET. I > hope all the very talented and positively motivated geoengineering > community will throw their support behind > > a strong global effort for NET and adopt the factually correct perspective > that if we develop a global consencus and work together we can get this > done, eg limit the time we spend in the overshoot CO2 condition. > > > > On Fri, Jul 27, 2018 at 2:08 AM, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Stopping the Flood: Could We Use Targeted Geoengineering to > > Mitigate Sea Level Rise? > > Michael J. Wolovick1 > > and John C. Moore2,3 > > 1Atmosphere and Ocean Sciences Program, Department of Geosciences, > Princeton University, GFDL, 201 Forrestal Road, > <https://maps.google.com/?q=201+Forrestal+Road,+%0D%0A+++++++++++++++Princeton,+NJ+08540,+USA&entry=gmail&source=g> > > Princeton, NJ 08540, USA > <https://maps.google.com/?q=201+Forrestal+Road,+%0D%0A+++++++++++++++Princeton,+NJ+08540,+USA&entry=gmail&source=g> > > 2College of Global Change and Earth System Science, Beijing Normal > University, Beijing, China > > 3Arctic Centre, University of Lapland, Finland > > Correspondence: M.J. Wolovick (wolov...@princeton.edu) > > Abstract. The Marine Ice Sheet Instability (MISI) is a dynamic feedback > that can cause an ice sheet to enter a runaway collapse. > > Thwaites Glacier, West Antarctica, is the largest individual source of > future sea level rise and may have already entered the > > MISI. Here, we use a suite of coupled ice–ocean flowband simulations to > explore whether targeted geoengineering using an > > artificial sill or artificial ice rises could counter a collapse. > Successful interventions occur when the floating ice shelf regrounds > > 5 on the pinning points, increasing buttressing and reducing ice flux > across the grounding line. Regrounding is more likely with a > > continuous sill that is able to block warm water transport to the > grounding line. The smallest design we consider is comparable > > in scale to existing civil engineering projects but has only a 30% success > rate, while larger designs are more effective. There > > are multiple possible routes forward to improve upon the designs that we > considered, and with decades or more to research > > designs it is plausible that the scientific community could come up with a > plan that was both effective and achievable. While > > 10 reducing emissions remains the short-term priority for minimizing the > effects of climate change, in the long run humanity may > > need to develop contingency plans to deal with an ice sheet collapse. > > -- > 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. > > > > > > -- > > 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. > 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 > "Carbon Dioxide Removal" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to carbondioxideremoval+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to carbondioxideremo...@googlegroups.com > . > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/CarbonDioxideRemoval. > To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/ > msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/0f4ed3f1-b570-466a-c2bb- > 7eb5b028c484%40comcast.net > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/CarbonDioxideRemoval/0f4ed3f1-b570-466a-c2bb-7eb5b028c484%40comcast.net?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > For more options, visit 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. > > > > > > -- > > 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. > 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. > > -- 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. 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.
