GRA
Posts: 9530
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

GCC: Report finds says “negative emissions technologies” need to play a large role in mitigating climate change

Mon Oct 29, 2018 6:01 pm

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/10/20181029-nas.html

To achieve goals for climate and economic growth, “negative emissions technologies” (NETs) that remove and sequester carbon dioxide from the air will need to play a significant role in mitigating climate change, according to a new report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. The report—“Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration”—calls for the launch of a substantial research initiative to advance these technologies as soon as possible.

Although climate mitigation remains the motivation for global investments in NETs, the committee that carried out the study and wrote the report determined that advances in NETs also could have economic rewards, as intellectual property rights and economic benefits will likely accrue to the nations that develop the best technology. . . .

Unlike carbon capture and storage technologies that remove carbon dioxide emissions directly from large point sources such as coal power plants, NETs remove carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere or enhance natural carbon sinks. . . .

The committee concluded that the NETs available today could be safely scaled up to capture and store a significant fraction of the total emissions both in the US and globally, but not enough to keep total global warming below two degrees Celsius, the target of the Paris agreement.

Therefore, a concerted research effort is needed to address the constraints that currently limit deployment of NETs, such as high costs, land and environmental constraints, and energy requirements.

Four land-based negative emissions technologies are ready for large-scale deployment at costs competitive with emissions mitigation strategies, the report says. These technologies include reforestation, changes in forest management, and changes in agricultural practices that enhance soil carbon storage. The fourth NET ready for scale up is “bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration”—in which plants or plant-based materials are used to produce electricity, liquid fuels, and/or heat, and any carbon dioxide that is produced is captured and sequestered.

However, these four NETs cannot yet provide enough carbon removal at reasonable cost without substantial unintended harm, the report says. Repurposing a significant amount of current agricultural land for growing new forests or feedstocks for bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration could have significant effects on food availability. Repurposing tropical forest would harm biodiversity. Research could identify ways to soften the land constraint, for instance, by developing crop plants that take up and sequester carbon more efficiently in soils, or by reducing food waste or demand for meat.

Two other negative emissions technologies could be revolutionary, the committee said, because they have high potential capacity to remove carbon. Direct air capture employs chemical processes to capture carbon dioxide from the air, concentrate it, and inject it into a storage reservoir. However, it is currently limited by high cost. There is no commercial driving force for developing direct air capture technologies; therefore, developing a low-cost option will require sustained government investment.

Carbon mineralization—which essentially accelerates “weathering” so carbon dioxide from the atmosphere forms a chemical bond with reactive minerals—is currently limited by lack of fundamental understanding.

The committee also examined coastal blue carbon, which involves changing land use and management practices to increase carbon stored in living plants or sediments in coastal ecosystems such as tidal marshlands. Although it has a relatively low potential capacity for removing carbon, the committee concluded that coastal blue carbon warrants continued exploration and support. The cost of the carbon removal is low or zero, because investments in many coastal blue carbon projects target other benefits such as coastal adaptation. An increase in understanding of how sea-level rise, coastal management, and other climate impacts could affect future carbon uptake rates is needed. . . .
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

SageBrush
Posts: 2939
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:28 am
Delivery Date: 13 Feb 2017
Location: Colorado

Re: GCC: Report finds says “negative emissions technologies” need to play a large role in mitigating climate change

Tue Oct 30, 2018 7:34 pm

Idiotic.
Not only is it cheaper to simply not pollute in the first place, the politics of so called negative emissions is a veiled call to pollute now with abandon and leave the clean-up (and mitigation) to a future generation. The oil companies love this idea.
2013 LEAF 'S' Model with QC & rear-view camera
Bought off-lease Jan 2017 from N. California
Car is now enjoying an easy life in Colorado
03/2018: 58 Ahr, 28k miles
11/2018: 56.16 Ahr, 30k miles
-----
2018 Tesla Model 3 LR, Delivered 6/2018

GetOffYourGas
Posts: 1946
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 6:56 pm
Delivery Date: 09 Mar 2012
Location: Syracuse, NY

Re: GCC: Report finds says “negative emissions technologies” need to play a large role in mitigating climate change

Wed Oct 31, 2018 8:15 am

SageBrush wrote:Idiotic.
Not only is it cheaper to simply not pollute in the first place, the politics of so called negative emissions is a veiled call to pollute now with abandon and leave the clean-up (and mitigation) to a future generation. The oil companies love this idea.

This.

This is exactly what I think every time I read about removing CO2 from the air.

Also, who is going to pay for this? There is no profitable business model that can be made, so it's highly doubtful that it will come to fruition. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it wouldn't be worth doing. I'm saying that the western world is strongly motivated by greed, which is why capitalism has a stronghold here.
~Brian

EV Fleet:
2011 Torqeedo Travel 1003 electric outboard on a 22' sailboat
2012 Leaf SV (traded for Bolt)
2015 C-Max Energi (302A package)
2017 Bolt Premier

wwhitney
Posts: 741
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 10:10 am
Delivery Date: 01 Apr 2011
Location: Berkeley, CA

Re: GCC: Report finds says “negative emissions technologies” need to play a large role in mitigating climate change

Wed Oct 31, 2018 8:36 am

My understanding of "negative emissions technologies" is that at this point, we have emitted enough CO2 that just reducing our net emissions to zero over the next decade or two may not be enough to avoid serious negative effects later in the century. In which case it may make sense to also pursue negative emissions.

Of course, what humanity actually does will likely diverge from its best interests.

Cheers, Wayne

GRA
Posts: 9530
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: GCC: Report finds says “negative emissions technologies” need to play a large role in mitigating climate change

Wed Oct 31, 2018 5:07 pm

wwhitney wrote:My understanding of "negative emissions technologies" is that at this point, we have emitted enough CO2 that just reducing our net emissions to zero over the next decade or two may not be enough to avoid serious negative effects later in the century. In which case it may make sense to also pursue negative emissions.

Of course, what humanity actually does will likely diverge from its best interests.

Cheers, Wayne

Exactly right.

    Negative emissions technologies are essential to offset carbon dioxide emissions that would be difficult to eliminate and should be viewed as a component of the climate change mitigation portfolio. Most climate mitigation efforts are intended to decrease the rate at which people add carbon from fossil fuel reservoirs to the atmosphere. We focused on the reverse—technologies that take carbon out of the air and put it back into ecosystems and the land. We determined that a substantial research initiative should be launched to advance these promising technologies as soon as possible.

    —Stephen Pacala, the Frederick D. Petrie Professor in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Princeton University and chair of the committee. . . .

The committee found that NETs have not yet received adequate public investment despite expectations that they might provide approximately 30% of the net emissions reductions this century. A substantial research investment is needed as soon as practicable, the committee said, to improve existing land-based NETs, make rapid progress on direct air capture and carbon mineralization, and advance NET-enabling research on biofuels and carbon dioxide sequestration.

As for who will pay for this:

The report presents multiple reasons to pursue research on NETs. First, states, local governments, corporations, and countries around the world now make substantial investments to reduce their net carbon emissions and plan to increase these expenditures. Some of these efforts already include negative emissions technologies. This means that advances in NETs will benefit the US economy if the intellectual property is held by US companies.

Second, as climate damages mount, the US will inevitably take increased action to limit climate change in the future.

Third, the US is already making a substantial effort, including the new 45Q rule that provides a tax credit for capture and storage, which would leverage the value of new investments in NET research. . . .

Reductions in total energy use (not just gains in efficiency) are critical, but the level of reduction that is realistic (barring some catastrophic war or pandemic) almost certainly won't be enough on its own. For example, the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) agreed to at COP 21 won't do it, assuming most countries even make those (the wide-spread failure of countries to meet their equally voluntary targets under Kyoto doesn't make for optimism), so we need to consider and develop additional methods, including atmospheric capture and large-scale geo-engineering. We may not be able to do either for political, economic or environmental reasons, but it's best we find that out sooner rather than later.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GRA
Posts: 9530
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: GCC: Report finds says “negative emissions technologies” need to play a large role in mitigating climate change

Thu Nov 01, 2018 5:47 pm

As for why we might need these techs, via GCR:
New report shows oceans warming much faster than anticipated
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1119672_new-report-shows-oceans-warming-much-faster-than-anticipated

A new study published Wednesday in the journal "Nature" shows global warming has already accelerated far beyond what scientists anticipated.

The study uses new methods to measure global ocean temperatures, which showed the oceans have retained 60 percent more heat than earlier estimates showed. Scientists measured the volume of oxygen and carbon dioxide gases evaporating from the oceans' surface, rather than inexact direct measurements that led to uncertainty before the new equipment was deployed in 2007. . . .

The new findings have dramatic impacts for policymakers aiming to reduce the impact of climate change. Under the Paris Climate Accord, global leaders set a target to limit global warming to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius), a target that will require carbon emissions to be cut in half by 2030. That effort has involved dramatic economic changes that have been difficult to implement, such as efforts to spur the widespread adoption of electric cars.

If the new study is correct, those cuts would have to be increased by 25 percent, and policymakers will have to launch new efforts to adapt to the effects of global warming along with mitigation measures. . . .

Scientists have been clamoring for measures to mitigate human contributions to climate change, but uncertainty about the degree of ocean warming contributed to stalling debate and limiting action.

"We thought that we got away with not a lot of warming in both the ocean and the atmosphere for the amount of CO2 that we emitted" under old measurements, Laure Resplandy, a geoscientist at Princeton University who led the new study told the Washington Post.

Paul Durack, a research scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, calls the new report "alarming," and says that if verified, it will mean that planner have to "go back to the drawing board" on how to mitigate the effects of climate change.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 6332
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

Re: GCC: Report finds says “negative emissions technologies” need to play a large role in mitigating climate change

Fri Nov 02, 2018 6:31 am

GRA wrote:
wwhitney wrote:My understanding of "negative emissions technologies" is that at this point, we have emitted enough CO2 that just reducing our net emissions to zero over the next decade or two may not be enough to avoid serious negative effects later in the century. In which case it may make sense to also pursue negative emissions.

Of course, what humanity actually does will likely diverge from its best interests.

Cheers, Wayne

Exactly right.
Complete nonsense.

Many negative effects have been predicted, but none have been detected.

The positive effects of additional CO2 in the atmosphere are unmistakable: a rapid greening of the planet. The idea that we should remove CO2 from the atmosphere is an idiotic one, even if it were free to do.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K mi. on 041413; 20K mi. (55.7Ah) on 080714; 30K mi. (52.0Ah) on 123015; 40K mi. (49.8Ah) on 020817; 50K mi. (47.2Ah) on 120717; 60K mi. (43.66Ah) on 091918.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

WetEV
Posts: 2371
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: GCC: Report finds says “negative emissions technologies” need to play a large role in mitigating climate change

Fri Nov 02, 2018 6:51 am

RegGuheert wrote:The positive effects of additional CO2 in the atmosphere are unmistakable: a rapid greening of the planet. The idea that we should remove CO2 from the atmosphere is an idiotic one, even if it were free to do.


0.5C warming is very likely a net positive. We have likely released enough CO2 to skip the next glacial advance, and likely the glacial advance beyond that. Takes the climate back to about 8,000 years ago. We passed this already. I agree that the first 100PPM should not be removed.

1C warming might be a net positive. Maybe. We are about here today. Takes the climate back to the last interglacial period.

Image

2C warming probably is a net negative.

4C warming is just a bad idea.

10C warming? Do you really need to ask?

And 20C warming is probably possible. Maybe we are not that dumb.

Assuming linearity isn't useful.
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 6332
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

Re: GCC: Report finds says “negative emissions technologies” need to play a large role in mitigating climate change

Fri Nov 02, 2018 7:47 am

WetEV wrote:
RegGuheert wrote:The positive effects of additional CO2 in the atmosphere are unmistakable: a rapid greening of the planet. The idea that we should remove CO2 from the atmosphere is an idiotic one, even if it were free to do.
0.5C warming is very likely a net positive. We have likely released enough CO2 to skip the next glacial advance, and likely the glacial advance beyond that. Takes the climate back to about 8,000 years ago. We passed this already.
Huh? It seems the fact is that sea ice in both Antarctic AND the Arctic are near their highest levels in the past 10,000 years.

But more pertinent to this discussion, the sea surface temperature has been dropping and the sea ice has been increasing in the Southern Hemisphere in recent decades:

Image

Image

In addition, glaciers in the Alps used to be much smaller than they are today. They peaked during the Little Ice Age, which was a period of terrible climate that killed many creatures on this Earth, including humans. I have no desire to return to those times.
WetEV wrote:I agree that the first 100PPM should not be removed. 1C warming might be a net positive.
That's a virtual certainty. Conditions on Earth have indeed gotten much better as we have climbed out of the Little Ice Age.
WetEV wrote:Maybe. We are about here today.
Agreed we are likely there today. Do you have evidence that there is something negative related to increasing CO2 in the atmosphere to date?
WetEV wrote:Takes the climate back to the last interglacial period.
Climate? You were talking about CO2. You have a LONG way to go in order to link climate to CO2.

Scientists have measured the greenhouse effect on Earth. It is unchanged in the last 25 years. In other words, increases in CO2 levels in our atmosphere do NOT result in increases in the Earth's greenhouse effect. This is not at all surprising, since CO2 is a very minor player in the greenhouse effect on this planet.
WetEV wrote:2C warming probably is a net negative.

4C warming is just a bad idea.

10C warming? Do you really need to ask?

And 20C warming is probably possible. Maybe we are not that dumb.
Predictions of that type of warming are just that: predictions. They are based on poor science which ignores the fact that the warming experienced at the end of the 20th century corresponded directly with a reduction in cloud cover over the Earth. The forcing due to that several-percent change in cloud cover is orders of magnitude higher than any change due to CO2 thus far. Plus, reduction in cloud cover allows sunlight to warm the ocean directly. The temperature of the surface of the ocean is the main control of the temperature of our atmosphere, as can be readily seen by the effects on an El Nino event. And the Sun is what heats the waters in the oceans. Currents in the ocean move water of different temperatures around.

But the idea that the surface of the oceans, as a whole, will increase by 4C or more due to very small changes in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (and hence, the greenhouse effect) is ludicrous. In other words, predictions of that magnitude are completely non-credible. Believe them at your own peril.

BTW, living in an interglacial period is a great thing for life on this planet. If you want to worry about something, I suggest you worry about the onset of the next glacial period. THAT is when things will get bad.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K mi. on 041413; 20K mi. (55.7Ah) on 080714; 30K mi. (52.0Ah) on 123015; 40K mi. (49.8Ah) on 020817; 50K mi. (47.2Ah) on 120717; 60K mi. (43.66Ah) on 091918.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

GRA
Posts: 9530
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: GCC: Report finds says “negative emissions technologies” need to play a large role in mitigating climate change

Fri Nov 02, 2018 4:48 pm

RegGuheert wrote:
GRA wrote:
wwhitney wrote:My understanding of "negative emissions technologies" is that at this point, we have emitted enough CO2 that just reducing our net emissions to zero over the next decade or two may not be enough to avoid serious negative effects later in the century. In which case it may make sense to also pursue negative emissions.

Of course, what humanity actually does will likely diverge from its best interests.

Cheers, Wayne

Exactly right.
Complete nonsense.

Many negative effects have been predicted, but none have been detected.

The positive effects of additional CO2 in the atmosphere are unmistakable: a rapid greening of the planet. The idea that we should remove CO2 from the atmosphere is an idiotic one, even if it were free to do.

Reg, it's well known that you don't believe in AGCC, so obviously this has no importance for you. It is of importance to those who do believe it's happening, or those like me who think it likely and believe that it's an experiment we simply can't afford to run. This is not the topic to argue for or against the reality of AGCC - you and others have done that at length many times elsewhere. As a matter of courtesy to the OP of this thread, I'd ask that you, WetEV and others refrain from repeating those arguments here; anyone who wants to do so has many other threads to repeat their arguments in.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

Return to “Environmental Issues”