Comments on: The Debate of the Decade Revisited — Avoiding the Technology Trap http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/14/the-debate-of-the-decade-revisited-avoiding-the-technology-trap/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:53:23 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: David B. Benson http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/14/the-debate-of-the-decade-revisited-avoiding-the-technology-trap/#comment-16064 David B. Benson Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:48:21 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/14/the-debate-of-the-decade-revisited-avoiding-the-technology-trap/#comment-16064 I think I did the metric conversion wrongly. It ought to be $330 per tonne of carbon. That's lots for biomass based sequestration! But alas, Joe seemed to think IEA has done their sums poorly. :-( I think I did the metric conversion wrongly. It ought to be $330 per tonne of carbon. That’s lots for biomass based sequestration!

But alas, Joe seemed to think IEA has done their sums poorly. :-(

]]> By: Joe http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/14/the-debate-of-the-decade-revisited-avoiding-the-technology-trap/#comment-16063 Joe Wed, 16 Jul 2008 00:10:05 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/14/the-debate-of-the-decade-revisited-avoiding-the-technology-trap/#comment-16063 I'll get back to the IEA analytical mistakes next week. I’ll get back to the IEA analytical mistakes next week.

]]> By: David B. Benson http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/14/the-debate-of-the-decade-revisited-avoiding-the-technology-trap/#comment-16058 David B. Benson Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:12:42 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/14/the-debate-of-the-decade-revisited-avoiding-the-technology-trap/#comment-16058 Yesterday I looked thorough Dr. Doty's web site (first comment above). Rather ingeneous and, although ambitious, looks to be part of a solutiion. I was rather amazed to see, according to that site, IEA wanting a $270 per tonne price tag on burning fossil carbon. That's alot! If the leftover CO2 is by through Dr. Doty's process, I suppose a case can be made for dropping that surcharge to $135 per tonne. And that is enough (U.S., Canada, Europe) to grow biomass, collect and carbonize it to bury the carbonaceous material deep underground; sequestered for centuries to millennia, one tonne of carbon back in the ground. But if these operations were done in the global South, probably about two tonnes of carbon could be removed for this price. Yesterday I looked thorough Dr. Doty’s web site (first comment above). Rather ingeneous and, although ambitious, looks to be part of a solutiion.

I was rather amazed to see, according to that site, IEA wanting a $270 per tonne price tag on burning fossil carbon. That’s alot! If the leftover CO2 is by through Dr. Doty’s process, I suppose a case can be made for dropping that surcharge to $135 per tonne. And that is enough (U.S., Canada, Europe) to grow biomass, collect and carbonize it to bury the carbonaceous material deep underground; sequestered for centuries to millennia, one tonne of carbon back in the ground. But if these operations were done in the global South, probably about two tonnes of carbon could be removed for this price.

]]> By: Bart Verheggen http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/14/the-debate-of-the-decade-revisited-avoiding-the-technology-trap/#comment-16056 Bart Verheggen Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:01:24 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/14/the-debate-of-the-decade-revisited-avoiding-the-technology-trap/#comment-16056 shouldn't it be "and - and" rather than "either - or"? Both deployment of currently available technology and further R&D (not in the least in order to make existing technologies cheaper) are needed. Now I understand your hesitation to promote R&D when you see examples out there that calling for more R&D is used as an alibi for inaction. A similar problem exists in the discussion about adaptation and mitigation: clearly both are needed, but indeed, there are people out there who use adaptation as a alibi to not engage in mitigation. Very wrong, but is the right answer than to claim that adaptation is unimportant? shouldn’t it be “and – and” rather than “either – or”? Both deployment of currently available technology and further R&D (not in the least in order to make existing technologies cheaper) are needed.
Now I understand your hesitation to promote R&D when you see examples out there that calling for more R&D is used as an alibi for inaction. A similar problem exists in the discussion about adaptation and mitigation: clearly both are needed, but indeed, there are people out there who use adaptation as a alibi to not engage in mitigation. Very wrong, but is the right answer than to claim that adaptation is unimportant?

]]> By: Glenn doty http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/14/the-debate-of-the-decade-revisited-avoiding-the-technology-trap/#comment-16055 Glenn doty Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:34:04 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/14/the-debate-of-the-decade-revisited-avoiding-the-technology-trap/#comment-16055 The problem with deployment is that it will NEVER be done without profit potential! NEVER. If you want deployment, you first have to have some kind of mechanism where the industry can make money or the consumer can save money by deploying... Right now, outside of wind energy in a few select places, that doesn't happen. That is what is so exciting about WindFuels, they have the potential to be profitable as soon as the plants start being built, and they will remain profitable through any reasonable level of scalability. They can be deployed at the maximum rate possible by industry and both the industry that is deploying and the consumers that purchase the fuel will directly MONETARILY benefit. http://www.dotyenergy.com/Economics/Scalability.htm Profit is another word for God in a free market economy... Until you develop a profitable energy solution, it will not be deployed. Good thing a profitable carbon-neutral energy solution is being developed www.dotyenergy.com The problem with deployment is that it will NEVER be done without profit potential!
NEVER.

If you want deployment, you first have to have some kind of mechanism where the industry can make money or the consumer can save money by deploying…

Right now, outside of wind energy in a few select places, that doesn’t happen.

That is what is so exciting about WindFuels, they have the potential to be profitable as soon as the plants start being built, and they will remain profitable through any reasonable level of scalability. They can be deployed at the maximum rate possible by industry and both the industry that is deploying and the consumers that purchase the fuel will directly MONETARILY benefit.

http://www.dotyenergy.com/Economics/Scalability.htm

Profit is another word for God in a free market economy… Until you develop a profitable energy solution, it will not be deployed.

Good thing a profitable carbon-neutral energy solution is being developed

http://www.dotyenergy.com

]]> By: Earl Killian http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/14/the-debate-of-the-decade-revisited-avoiding-the-technology-trap/#comment-16054 Earl Killian Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:25:58 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/14/the-debate-of-the-decade-revisited-avoiding-the-technology-trap/#comment-16054 dash, a real-world CSP plant being built in Victorville for SCE by Stirling Energy Systems is supposed to generate 1780 GWh/year on 1800 hectares of land. That is 271 MWh/day/km^2. dash, a real-world CSP plant being built in Victorville for SCE by Stirling Energy Systems is supposed to generate 1780 GWh/year on 1800 hectares of land. That is 271 MWh/day/km^2.

]]> By: dash http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/14/the-debate-of-the-decade-revisited-avoiding-the-technology-trap/#comment-16052 dash Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:52:26 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/14/the-debate-of-the-decade-revisited-avoiding-the-technology-trap/#comment-16052 Joe, I know it's wrong. But I'm no scientist. I'd like to refute the guy who is trying to peddle this misinformation. [<em>JR: Sorry. I misunderstood. If you do the math again, you'll see he left in an extra factor of 1000. "peak sunlight energy on Earth is 1000 watts per square meter. That means your 4 Gigawatta solar plant must have a collector area of 4 square kilometers [NOT 4,000], minimum (4 billion watts divided by 1000 watts divided by 1 million squre meters per square kilometers)" !!! BTW, 4 GW is a HUGE plant.</em>] Joe, I know it’s wrong. But I’m no scientist. I’d like to refute the guy who is trying to peddle this misinformation.

[JR: Sorry. I misunderstood. If you do the math again, you'll see he left in an extra factor of 1000.

"peak sunlight energy on Earth is 1000 watts per square meter. That means your 4 Gigawatta solar plant must have a collector area of 4 square kilometers [NOT 4,000], minimum (4 billion watts divided by 1000 watts divided by 1 million squre meters per square kilometers)” !!! BTW, 4 GW is a HUGE plant.]

]]> By: Ronald http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/14/the-debate-of-the-decade-revisited-avoiding-the-technology-trap/#comment-16048 Ronald Tue, 15 Jul 2008 16:05:46 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/14/the-debate-of-the-decade-revisited-avoiding-the-technology-trap/#comment-16048 To compare the need for non and low carbon energy to the Montreal Protocol can be done. That was one way to solve a problem. But in the 1970's, smog in cities was a problem and that was solved with pollution reducing engine add ons that was required by law. Could it have been solved any other way? The cars cost more and the technology got better over time, but it was mandated by law. For the Montreal Protocol to be compared to the low and non carbon energy, the Montreal Protocol could only have been implemented if the replacement HCFC's were cheaper than the CFC's that they were replacing before the agreement was to be implemented. HCFC's were mandated by law to be implemented even if the total system cost more. Some are saying that low and non carbon energy technologies can be implemented only if they cost less than carbon energy, quite a different thing to do. To compare the need for non and low carbon energy to the Montreal Protocol can be done. That was one way to solve a problem. But in the 1970’s, smog in cities was a problem and that was solved with pollution reducing engine add ons that was required by law. Could it have been solved any other way? The cars cost more and the technology got better over time, but it was mandated by law.

For the Montreal Protocol to be compared to the low and non carbon energy, the Montreal Protocol could only have been implemented if the replacement HCFC’s were cheaper than the CFC’s that they were replacing before the agreement was to be implemented. HCFC’s were mandated by law to be implemented even if the total system cost more. Some are saying that low and non carbon energy technologies can be implemented only if they cost less than carbon energy, quite a different thing to do.

]]> By: john http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/14/the-debate-of-the-decade-revisited-avoiding-the-technology-trap/#comment-16045 john Tue, 15 Jul 2008 14:28:40 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/14/the-debate-of-the-decade-revisited-avoiding-the-technology-trap/#comment-16045 Andy: You say, My sense, in tracking both the climate and energy issues for more than 20 years, is that the politics of solution (the Montreal Protocol, for instance) only come about when the technology is there, and affordable ... Well, after tracking this issue for more than 30 years, I can tell you there are two flaws in your analysis: 1) you assume that cost-effective alternative technologies are not available now, but they are -- a review of Mckinsey, IPCC, the wedge analyses (Joe's or Socolow's) show that we can make the requisite cuts at little or no cost with technologies available or nearly available today -- we do not need a fundamental breaktrough to stabilize at 450 ppm. 2) Your assumption that cost-effective alternatives for CFCs were available prior to the Montreal protocal is an overstatement. CFCs were ubiquitous in our economy -- used for cleaning, refrigeration, fire retardents etc. DuPont had alternatives for some uses (and not commercially tested ones at that) but they did not have viable replacements for other applications. In short, they acted because they had to -- and as with the catalytic converter - technology floowed policy. But the real problem with someone of your influence repeating the "breakthrough technology" meme, is not siumply that it is wrong -- it is that others of bad faith use it to paralyze progress that must be -- and can be -- made now. For the record, I believe we do need a breakthrough technology -- one aimed at removing CO2 from the atmosphere. I agree with James Hansen that we need to get below 350 ppm some time after 2050 -- as a geologist, I have seen evidence in the geologic record demonstrating run-away feedbacks when atmospheric concentrations exceed that value for any length of time. Both th Permain die-off and the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum were triggered by volcanic activity that was comparable to what we are doing today. At any rate, it is either misinformed of disingenuous to say we need a breakthrough to get to 450 ppm -- we can, and we should start today. In the end, fear of advocacy on the part of the MSM, may be the thing that made it impossible to address global warming on time. Andy:

You say,

My sense, in tracking both the climate and energy issues for more than 20 years, is that the politics of solution (the Montreal Protocol, for instance) only come about when the technology is there, and affordable …

Well, after tracking this issue for more than 30 years, I can tell you there are two flaws in your analysis: 1) you assume that cost-effective alternative technologies are not available now, but they are — a review of Mckinsey, IPCC, the wedge analyses (Joe’s or Socolow’s) show that we can make the requisite cuts at little or no cost with technologies available or nearly available today — we do not need a fundamental breaktrough to stabilize at 450 ppm.

2) Your assumption that cost-effective alternatives for CFCs were available prior to the Montreal protocal is an overstatement. CFCs were ubiquitous in our economy — used for cleaning, refrigeration, fire retardents etc. DuPont had alternatives for some uses (and not commercially tested ones at that) but they did not have viable replacements for other applications.

In short, they acted because they had to — and as with the catalytic converter – technology floowed policy.

But the real problem with someone of your influence repeating the “breakthrough technology” meme, is not siumply that it is wrong — it is that others of bad faith use it to paralyze progress that must be — and can be — made now.

For the record, I believe we do need a breakthrough technology — one aimed at removing CO2 from the atmosphere. I agree with James Hansen that we need to get below 350 ppm some time after 2050 — as a geologist, I have seen evidence in the geologic record demonstrating run-away feedbacks when atmospheric concentrations exceed that value for any length of time. Both th Permain die-off and the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum were triggered by volcanic activity that was comparable to what we are doing today.

At any rate, it is either misinformed of disingenuous to say we need a breakthrough to get to 450 ppm — we can, and we should start today.

In the end, fear of advocacy on the part of the MSM, may be the thing that made it impossible to address global warming on time.

]]> By: Joe http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/14/the-debate-of-the-decade-revisited-avoiding-the-technology-trap/#comment-16042 Joe Tue, 15 Jul 2008 11:39:44 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/2008/07/14/the-debate-of-the-decade-revisited-avoiding-the-technology-trap/#comment-16042 No, Dash, your math is (quite) off. Try again. No, Dash, your math is (quite) off. Try again.

]]>