[Kevin Cudby]

Hi Everybody

I think the first step toward overcoming this climate problem is to acknowledge that it is simply a constraint on human development. To me, as an engineer, a constraint is something I need to overcome. Philosophically, it is no different from inventing a device to make it easier to transport my stuff (a wheel), or dropping a tree across a river so it’s easier to get across without getting swept away.

It’s now almost ten years since I started researching alternatives to fossil liquid fuels. I concluded back then that stabilising man-made warming would not inhibit human development. I use solar crude oil as a benchmark. We know how to make crude oil using solar energy. We have a good idea what it will cost – somewhere between three to four times the cost of fossil crude. I found that the combined effect of per-capita economic growth  and the introduction of known vehicle technology improvements would ensure that carbon-neutral gasoline and jet fuel would be at least as affordable at the end of the 21st century, as fossil fuels are today.

That analysis takes no account of possible technological advances. So, if someone invents a better car or aircraft – bonus!

The science is quite clear. If we want to keep this habitat viable, we must put a control lever on atmospheric carbon dioxide. The first step is to phase out carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels. The IPCC was in denial about this until 2013, so I don’t expect everyone to know this yet. However, it has been known with practically total certainty for at least a decade. Maybe two.

In any case, stopping net emissions is only the first step. From then on, forever, humanity will live in engineered habitats. On earth, for example, it may be necessary in the next few hundred years to REDUCE atmospheric carbon dioxide. That is a slow process, so future generations may also need to make strategic use of solar radiation management.

The real question is not: Can we fix the problem? The real question is, “Why do are so many people in denial about the inevitability of habitat engineering?”

My grandfather would not have asked that question. If the roof on his house leaked he fixed it. The problem had to be solved. He applied the appropriate technological solution. End of story.

I think our biggest problem today is that too many people block essential engineering work. If man-made climate change is as serious a threat as the greenies claim it is, then there is no option: The time has come to take control of habitat. No amount of sociological mumbo-jumbo will change that.

No-one should find this surprising. We know that the habitable zone around the sun will gradually expand. At some point in the long-distant future this planet will become uninhabitable. Some time before that happens, people will engineer the habitat to extend the life of earth-based communities. When I was in high school in the 1970s people thought that time was millions of years in the future. The message from climate science is that it is here, now, in our place-time.

I find a constraints-based approach (Google “The Goal”, Goldratt) promises to work as well in this field as it does for me as a manufacturing engineer or technology consultant.

Thanks to some excellent analysis by Myles Allen, Dave Frame, and their co-workers, we know that there is a linear relationship between permanent man-made warming and cumulative (net) emissions of carbon.

The constraint is carbon dioxide.

Habitat engineers have no choice. Only a hard cap, falling to zero over a period of say, sixty years, can stabilise average global temperature and ocean pH. Nothing else can achieve both of those goals.Solar radiation management has nothing for ocean pH. The IPCC, even in its latest report, presents no evidence in support of carbon taxes. I can show you plenty of evidence that these cannot work. The oil companies already know how what to do. They also know they cannot move without a progress global ban on fossil fuels. A sinking lid on emissions would galvanise the market – and market-led innovation has driven humanity forward for millions of years.

Temperature stablisation is a fifty to sixty year project. The next step in habitat engineering will be designed and implemented by engineers who have not yet been born.

My key point:

This is a hard engineering problem.

Yoda say: Not try. Just do.

[Kevin Cudby]

The key question is: “How do you create the market conditions to make this happen?” Myles Allen’s SAFE carbon proposal directly targeted net carbon emissions. His idea would drive a smooth economic transition from what we have now to a mix of bioenergy and direct air capture with underground sequestration.

I found that fossil gasoline with air capture and sequestration (per SAFE) would be a smidgeon more expensive than biofuel in NZ (about 2x fossil gasoline). Over a sixty year transition, economic growth and technological improvement would progressively improve the affordability of gasoline, even though the supply was being carbon-neutralised. But then you would have a big jump from there to fully renewable crude oil. I saw (and still see) no other practical option but a global emissions cap, falling to zero, and strictly enforced. This is the one option politicians run away from. That’s why I developed DriveSolar. It was originally designed to illustrate that such a policy would not inhibit economic development. Gasoline still gets progressively more affordable.

It later became clear to me that sea levels would continue to rise for centuries, perhaps millenia, after temperature stabilisation was achieved. I realised, however, that an extended DriveSolar vision could address that, using KNOWN technology.

An important side effect is that DriveSolar leads to energy abundance. This means the supply energy in the 22nd century should not constrain carbon negative technology, whether it’s direct air capture or marine algae fertilisation. The constraint is hard cash, but I don’t think it is a serious constraint. I have no cost data on marine algae. That doesn’t matter. DriveSolar convinced me that one method of reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide would be affordable. If another method happens to be more cost-effective, bonus! (More money for space development! I want to come back as my great-grandson)

Under hard carbon caps, and nothing else (except anti-smog regulations), the auto, aviation, and marine industries would be free to adopt whatever technology they choose. DriveSolar merely shows it does not matter it hydrogen and battery vehicles never dominate the market.

What kind of policy would take the world beyond carbon neutrality? How can future generations drive atmospheric carbon reduction, without ruling out any particular technology?

Does it matter right now?

(I say the answer to the second question is probably “yes”, because I strongly suspect the world will need to use SRM for some decades, perhaps a century or so, during the interim. That can’t go on forever.)

[Kevin Cudby]

Hi Adam

First, I must emphasise that my purpose is not to “design” the future, merely to show the goal is possible. In this case, the goal is to remove two constraints (energy & earth’s climate) on economic development. If someone invents something better that is a bonus.

1 & 2. Solar crude oil is made with carbon dioxide extracted from the atmosphere. At least two companies are now building pilot-scale carbon dioxide harvesting facilities: Carbon Engineering, and Climeworks. There is no reason to think the technology will not work. Carbon Engineering has put plenty of tech info in the public domain. To make crude oil production carbon negative, oil companies would be required to extract additional carbon dioxide. With per-capita economic growth of 1.1% pa, I think it would be feasible by 2140 to require them to extract about 3 or 4 tonnes of carbon for every tonne of carbon they convert into crude oil. The extra 2 or 3 tonnes go into underground sequestration. Annual crude oil demand by then should be above ten billion tonnes and growing strongly. At that time, the annual rate of carbon sequestration (assuming the global energy supply is at worst, carbon neutral), should be about 17 to >25 billion tonnes per year. The sequestration rate could increase over time as economic growth makes gasoline and jet fuel ever more affordable, thus allowing the market to stand the added cost associated with carbon sequestration. The DriveSolar reference process shows the energy flows for carbon-neutral oil production. I haven’t drawn up the carbon negative version yet, and I need to post the costings some time.

3. Water is not the problem some suggest. I now have three independent assessments of the expected thermal efficiency of solar crude oil production (including my own calculations). The estimates range from 10% to less than 15%. Process temperatures are high enough for excellent heat recovery using conventional chemical engineering techniques (up to 1000 degrees in the Sunfire process designed by Bilfinger). This means the system could desalinate a lot more water than it consumes (I’m still trying to get a realistic estimate, but conservatively, it’s a lot). In principle the surplus could simply be released into nearby waterways to boost downstream irrigation, town water supplies, even wilderness areas. However, the market price for water is too low to drive this. Communities near solar crude oil plants would need to work something out. (It could simply  be “quid pro quo” for using the land).

I hope to post more calculations on Techogeny.com, however, I am very busy with my writing practice so this might take some time. Meantime, there are some graphs in my renewable fuel course notes (slides 11 & 12)

[Kevin Cudby]

Also, by the way, carbon-negative crude oil production based on DriveSolar would be capable of driving atmospheric CO2 well below present-day levels. My feeling is that habitat engineers would probably go for sea level stability. Once people adapted to sea level rise through the 21st and part of the 22nd century, why lower the sea level? Based on the modelling I’ve seen, atmospheric CO2 in that case would go below present-day levels. Myles Allen a couple of years ago presented the result of a survey showing huge potential for underground sequestration – which suggests that won’t be a constraint either.

[Kevin Cudby]

Ian solar crude oil production is quite different from biofuel production. My drivesolar process is very similar to the process used by Sunfire in Dresden. Solar to crude oil thermal efficiency looks to be about 10-14%. Hence the very low land area requirement. DriveSolar is based on 30% area coverage (heliostat to total facility area). Annual production, 20 billion tonnes oil, from less than 2.2% ice-free land area. For comparison, Scion’s energy forestry proposal gives about 0.85% solar to crude oil thermal efficiency. I see no obvious resource constraint, which is why I say anything better would be a bonus. Incidentally, I was first tipped off to the potential for solar crude oil production by an article in Science.

I wrote up DriveSolar because I eventually concluded Sandia and other researchers were trying to run before they could walk. Within only a few months, along came a press release announcing the completion of Sunfire’s pilot plant. Apparently it’s now producing FT crude.

I have more numbers to put up on Techogeny yet. However, please don’t muddy the water by assuming this involves biology. It’s all hard technology.

[Author]

Posts