Re: FW: [geo] 6 key lessons to inform negative emissions technology innovation

[John Nissen]

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) 
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 ] *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_medium=social_source=twitter.com_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 

FW: [geo] 6 key lessons to inform negative emissions technology innovation

[Schuiling, R.D. (Olaf)]

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] 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_medium=social_source=twitter.com_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