Profile picture
Glen Peters @Peters_Glen
, 11 tweets, 5 min read Read on Twitter
THREAD

We need research, development, & eventual deployment of negative emission technologies, but relying on them at scale is an unjust and high-stakes gamble.

science.sciencemag.org/content/354/63…
The first part of this sentence means that @KevinClimate & I support the great work of @DKeithClimate & colleagues. The second part pissed many people off, particularly people working on these technologies. science.sciencemag.org/content/354/63…
We now have the first detailed engineering cost breakdown of a Direct Air Capture plant (1MtCO₂/yr), putting the levelized costs at $94 to $232 per tonne CO₂. There seems to be some excitement about this, so let's have a look sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
This means it is still he most expensive way to tackle climate change, just less expensive then before. If we have any carbon policy, then all other low- or negative-carbon technologies become relatively more attractive. DAC is still the least attractive (in terms of cost).
These are cost estimates, no one is deploying this technology in anything other than pilot scale. Carbon capture & storage is considerably more advanced, & we still can't get that deployed at any meaningful scale with today's climate policies. What hope for DAC?
A new study put the cost of DAC at $100-300/tCO₂ (hmmm, did they know about the Carbon Engineering's estimates). This makes DAC the most expensive way to remove carbon from the atmosphere, but it *may* have more scale potential then others.
doi.org/10.1088/1748-9…
Integrated Assessment Models love negative emissions, but most don't include DAC. If the cost of DAC goes from the previous $600t/CO₂ to $100-300/tCO₂, then IAMs will deploy even more negative emissions. This will just exacerbate our concerns.
science.sciencemag.org/content/354/63…
Then these is the excitement over "air to fuels". Free & limitless PV/batteries driving DAC with the CO₂ converted to fuels, CO₂ re-emitted on fuel use, & the cycle continues. I love it. I also love Star Wars. Great, but how does this help address climate change?
Air to fuels may have applications in some boutique sectors (say fuel for aviation). There are many ways to produce low-carbon fuels, I think it is a long time before air to fuels is the cheapest or most useful in a climate context.
Hats of to @DKeithClimate & team, but I don't understand the excitement here (not blaming David for this). Are people excited as they see DAC, air to fuels an alternative to mitigation? Frankly, if we continue to belch out 40GtCO₂/yr, then all of this research on DAC is in vain?
Back to the "moral hazard" (sorry @DMReinerCamb). I know this term gets people hot under the collar, but the excitement around CO₂ removal sort of proves the point? We get excited about fancy "save the world" technologies, but don't want to get our hands dirty with mitigation.
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to Glen Peters
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Peters_Glen see all

Profile picture
THREAD (The Global Status of CCS)

CCS is moving, but moving way too slowly for for 1.5°C or 2°C.

Even if you are not a CCS fan, worth checking the report by @GlobalCCS to get an update on the current status of CCS around the world.

#COP24 globalccsinstitute.com/resources/glob…
There currently exists ~40MtCO₂ per year capture *capacity* (0.1% global emissions), the vast majority for Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR). It is harder to know how much of CO₂ is stored (not commonly reported or verified), but the estimate here is 200MtCO₂ (cumulatively).
Of the 230MtCO₂ cumulative storage, the vast majority is in the US and for enhanced oil recovery. Norway is the only country (substantially) sequestering CO₂ specifically for storage purposes, where carbon pricing makes it beneficial to store the CO₂. Policy is important!
Read 9 tweets
Profile picture
THREAD (Global Fossil CO₂ Emissions)

Global fossil CO₂ emissions are on track to rise more than 2% in 2018 (2.7%, range 1.8% to 3.7%). Emissions rose 1.6% in 2017 (leap-year adjusted) after a temporary slowdown from 2014 to 2016.

#CarbonBudget #COP24 globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/i…
Countries that need to slowdown:
* China, up 4.7% [2.0–7.4%]
* India, up 6.3% [4.3–8.3%]
* Others (largely developing), up 1.8% [0.5–3.0%]

Countries that need faster reductions:
* USA, up 2.5% [0.5–4.5%]
* EU, down 0.7% [-2.6–1.3%]

#CarbonBudget #COP24 globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/i…
There is a broad spread in CO₂ emissions per capita, but for a chance of 1.5°C or 2°C, countries with low per capita emissions also have to reduce emissions.

Yes, developed countries have to do more, but they can’t do it alone!

#CarbonBudget #COP24 globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/i…
Read 10 tweets
Profile picture
Does model bias effect outcomes of the #IPCC 1.5°C emission scenarios #SR15?

The scenario database is over represented by some model frameworks. Taking statistics will over represent some models (eg, REMIND, AIM), discount others (eg @IEA), & not all models included!

THREAD 1/
The bias varies by scenario category, here for 1.5°C scenarios with "no or low overshoot" as highlighted in #SR15. Should REMIND & POLES get more weight then GCAM or MERGE?
2/
I often take medians of scenarios to simplify communication, trying to reveal the "key characteristics" of 1.5°C (trying to find robust messages). The scenario community does not like this approach
3/
Read 8 tweets

Related threads

Profile picture
Do you want to learn about gas turbine performance? It’s kind of a big deal.
/THREAD
Gas turbines are used for two primary things:

1) Electricity Generation (The most efficient gas turbine in the world is made by GE. The 9HA: ge.com/power/gas/gas-…), &

2) Propulsion (e.g. jet engines on airplanes: animagraffs.com/inside-a-jet-e…).
Between electricity generation & jet propulsion, high temperature gas turbines convert over 12% of all the energy consumed in the United States, and turn it into useful products like air travel and electric lights
Read 24 tweets
Profile picture
#Thread

Bonjour, c’est moi, Jean-Michel La Mort du Fun et aujourd’hui on va parler d’un des facteurs de la possible extinction future des #amphibiens (la classe d’organismes qui comprend les grenouilles, les crapauds, les salamandres, les tritons et les céciles) :D
Parmi les espèces les plus en danger, on compte les amphibiens. Grenouilles, crapauds et autres joyeusetés subissent depuis les années 1980 une déclin plus que préoccupant de leur population.
En 2004 une 1ere évaluation révélait que 32% des espèces étaient globalement menacées, au moins 43% connaissaient une forme de diminution de la population et qu'entre 9 et 122 espèces avaient disparu depuis 1980. (science.sciencemag.org/content/306/57…)
Read 28 tweets
Profile picture
THREAD: @SecretaryZinke says "hot and dry weather" and "the fuels that overload our forests" are to blame for the #wildfires raging in California and the West. He got a couple things wrong. usatoday.com/story/opinion/… /1
Scientists have known for over a decade that higher temperatures are making wildfires worse. Fire season is longer, and fires are more intense now. science.sciencemag.org/content/313/57… /2
And what's causing those high temperatures? Higher CO2 emissions. And what's causing that? The burning of fossil fuels. /3 ipcc.ch/report/graphic…
Read 11 tweets
Profile picture
1. In response to some aggressive challenges (#troll) on some of the statements I make in my recent @Ensia article, I thought it important to share the following points (thread)
2. Here’s the link to the article in question. ensia.com/voices/science/
3. And here’s a link to another essay I wrote a while ago that dives in deeper: conservationofchange.org/thefireweed/20…
Read 56 tweets
Profile picture
1/ Two interesting comments in @Nature_Geo on carbon budgets.
Carbon budgets may be of limited value to trigger policy action, but they have been crucial in changing how people think about the CO2 problem. Here’s why…
@Peters_Glen @Oliver_Geden nature.com/articles/s4156…
2/ Many (inconveniently) simple facts that everyone needs to remember follow from carbon budgets (and related work). Summarized here: iac.ethz.ch/content/dam/et…. Namely…
3/ CO2 is the largest contributor to the total forcing and surface warming both in the past and future.
Read 26 tweets
Profile picture
Thread: Let me give you a summary of what @VoltarCH, @lellifede, Helmut Jerjen and I report in our new Science paper (science.sciencemag.org/content/359/63…)
Satellite Galaxies Planes exist around the Milky Way and M31. The satellite galaxies show coherence in their velocities (red receding, blue approaching in these views). For the MW, proper motions even show that some co-orbit along the plane.
These satellite planes are a serious challenge for ΛCDM, because similarly extreme structures are extremely rare in cosmological simulations (of order 1:1000). Typically, dark matter sub-halos are much more randomly distributed (like in the shown Via Lactea simulation).
Read 19 tweets

Trending hashtags

#Foreshadowing #GoPlaneteers #inflammation #Interconnected #humanwildlifeconflict #DirectorsCut #IPCC #2018MMM #alternative #HPV #bitcoin #Palmoil #statsmisconceptions #InMice #amphibiens #scicomm #ML2 #GATA3 #5AR #statsmisconception #Robodebt #NIH #ShamelessSelfPromotion #pathway #carnassials

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member and get exclusive features!

Premium member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year)

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!