Gigaton Throwdown Blog

7 Responses to “Welcome to Gigaton Throwdown Blog!”

1. Alex Shenderov Says:
   June 25th, 2009 at 3:26 pm

   Just a few comments on the first read of the Biofuels section. First, 1 GT CO2e is approximately half of what the US transportation sector emits today. DOE has estimated that replacement of 100% of liquid fuels with biofuels grown on arable land would require essentially ALL arable land in the US. So replacement of 50% would require half the land. I don’t think we could afford the disruption of food supply this “solution” would entail. The land-based biofuel crops are just not scalable to the necessary tonnage.

   Algae are somewhat better in that they theoretically require neither arable land nor fresh water. However, they need carbon; and the way carbon is delivered to them is by adding CO2 in the ponds or fermentors. In the quantity required, this CO2 has to be obtained either by burning coal or by scrubbing from the air. The latter is a very expensive technology to scale up. And the former puts algae into direct competition with all other coal-to-liquid (CTL) approaches, - and algae yields less liquid fuel per ton of coal than the old Fischer-Tropsch Synthesis (FTS). Aside from that, algae biofuels grown from coal-derived CO2 actually add more carbon to the atmosphere when burned.

   In my opinion, current investment practices in biofuels investing may be driving us to a biofuels bubble. Investing in deployment of the technologies that are not ready for prime time, or those that are tailored to a feedstock that cannot be scaled up, is premature. More deals, of smaller size, and at an earlier stage, would be preferable.

   What I think is needed, instead of megadeals, is a careful analysis of carbon-neutral or carbon negative, scaleable feedstock options, and a focused R&D program to develop those. It should be funded largely by DOE, preferably in partnership with private sector. DOE will have to remove the 20% matching funds requirement: in current economic circumstances, it has become a selection criterion, and what we need is just the best ideas competing on the level playing field. Maybe the matching funds should come from the private partners of DOE, with a special fund set up for this purpose.

   What approaches should be considered? Admittedly, I am biased, since I am working on marine plankton biomass myself. But there is only one other scalable and carbon-negative biomass source that I know, and that’s seasonal foliage - which presents tremendous logistical problems in collection.

2. russ Says:
   June 26th, 2009 at 4:14 pm

   While it’s admirable to seek to reduce today’s and tomorrow’s emissions this does nothing about the dire crisis of yesterday’s CO2, the nearly trillion gigatonnes already emitted into the air since the beginning of the fossil fue age. Scarcely 1/4-1/3 of this deadly airborne carbon bomb has been absorbed the earth and ocean systems. In absorbing the lions share of this the oceans are becoming more acidic at a perilous rate.

   The most urgent challenge is not to change society and technology but rather to administer planetary first aid to the single most important patient, mother nature. She lies on our fossil fuel highway crushed and perhaps mortally wounded. Leaving her unattended and dying will see us in possession of new technology to power a dead planet. What is most important and urgent is to restore the SEAS and TREES which alone can compete with ocean acidifying climate changing effects of CO2 and convert billions of tonnes of CO2 into life each year instead of death.

   The loss of net primary productivity in the oceans since the early eighties when our new satellites starting providing global data show the sub-tropical tropical oceans have lost 50% of thier plants, the phytoplankton. The North Pacific is down by 26%, the North Atlantic by 17%, and the Southern Ocean by 10%. As the ocean pastures become ocean deserts we are losing fish and all manner of higher sealife and watching the bacteria rise to restore the ocean realm to the realm of slime from which life evolved.

   Restoring the SEAS an TREES to levels of productivity can be accomplished in a few years not decades or centuries… If we restore the oceans to the state of healthy producitivity of 1980 they will convert 4-5 gigatonnes more CO2 into ocean life each year that is takin place today. In the bargain these restored ocean pastures will fill and sustain all manner of life in the oceans. If we do not do this the oceans will suffer from the chemical shock treatment and revert to the bacterial sea. This is the very real and personal Blue Screen of Death…

   To accomplish ocean restoration will cost a few billion per year… it is technology that is proven from 20 years and a quarter of a billion dollars in international research and development. Read more on this at Planktos Science at http://www.planktos-science.com or in the June 09 issue of MAKE Magazine…

3. Peter Hess Says:
   June 30th, 2009 at 7:02 am

   One question and one thought:

   1) How does this work sync up with Princeton’s Stabilization wedges?
   2) The heading on your site targets “investors, entrepreneurs, business leaders, and policy makers” Doesn’t it also make sense to target the public; especially CC skeptics? I was talking to a conservative colleague, and he commented that even if CC were human-induced, there was nothing we could realistically do about it without huge cost. I think Paul’s message that there are realistic, feasible options is important, and should be used in public ed. campaigns.

4. KonstantinMiller Says:
   July 6th, 2009 at 8:21 pm

   I think I will try to recommend this post to my friends and family, cuz it’s really helpful.

5. peabody Says:
   July 8th, 2009 at 1:21 pm

   Here’s a comment on the Biofuels section and a response to the comment from Alex Shenderov. There seems to be this pervasive assumption that any further substantive growth of ethanol produced from corn will require massive amounts of new arable land to be put into production in the US and around the world. If projections from DuPont and Monsanto are anywhere close to being accurate, we will be seeing dramatic increases in corn yields per acre in the US and around the world from improvements to the seed genetics. If done responsibly, corn based biofuels has plenty of room for further expansion within the existing transportation fuel infrastructure, while still allowing for sufficient volume for grain for food, feed and other demands. This wouldn’t necessarily require a single additional acre of land use. In addition, some biofuel companies are planning on using corn cobs from the same acres to produce additional ethanol, while using the lignin residue to power the biofuel facility. Studies show that corn cobs provide little nutrient value to the soil. This combination of kernel and cob based biofuel has great gigaton potential, so don’t toss out corn based biofuel based on land use assumptions that may be quite inaccurate.

6. Jerry Toman Says:
   July 11th, 2009 at 3:37 pm

   All this effort, while well meaning, will bear no fruit in the face of economic meltdowns and political gridlock.

   We need to quickly find a technology that represents a “breakthrough”, the benefits of which are such are so obvious that a that everyone will want to invest in it.

   IMO, that technology is the Atmospheric Vortex Engine–humanity’s “escape hatch” from its current climate-change/economic conundrum.

   It’s nothing short of shameful that the current “green elite” continue to ignore the potential inherent in “inverting the troposphere” with vortices.

   Ref: http://vortexengine.ca Toot-toot–all aboard for “Plan B”.

7. Liz Merry Says:
   July 13th, 2009 at 10:44 pm

   This is an important way to envision what real progress looks like. You have to picture it before you can do it.

   I was hoping the U.S. PV industry would hold a 1 Gigawatt birthday party for our U.S. grid-tied market later this year. Picture big progress and celebrate big milestones!

   See “Climate Change Recalculated,” where Dr. Saul Griffith explains to generate 2TW of power from PV you’d need to install 100 m2 per second for twenty five years. That get’s your heart pumping! See the talk here: http://fora.tv/2009/01/16/Saul_Griffith_Climate_Change_Recalculated

   Great work GigatonThrowDown team!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.